Beyond the classroom: Using a blended learning environment ... · The central focus of our design...

Running head: BEYOND THE CLASSROOM 1

Beyond the classroom: Using a blended learning

environment to teach critical thinking and writing skills

Stephen McQuaid, Steven MacKenzie, Gillian Sudlow, & David Symonds

The University of British Columbia

BEYOND THE CLASSROOM 2

Beyond the classroom: Using a blended learning

environment to teach critical thinking and writing skills

Key Frameworks

The central focus of our design is a modular course called “Making an Argument”. Using

a blended learning approach, the course combines classroom instruction and activities within the

Moodle learning management system (LMS) to promote critical thinking and metacognitive

skills.

A main feature of our design project is that it can be readily adapted and scaffolded for a

variety of age groups and levels, including learners of English as an Additional Language (EAL)

and a range of subject areas. The framework for the design is layered, so that learners and

educators can select individual components of the module, considering time constraints and / or

learner and subject-area relevance. This is easily afforded by the Moodle platform, as individual

components can be “hidden” within the module. The Moodle platform for the online portion of

the course affords all of the collaborative and constructive learning tools needed - blogs, wikis,

and forums - and allows teachers to build in scaffolding by uploading additional resources and

activities. With the use of these media, immediate and asynchronous communication modes are

both enabled, thereby reducing time constraints. The use of online media also allows for a digital

record of metacognitive reflection, critical thinking, and argumentative reasoning.

Students will proceed through a series of collaborative and individual tasks, gaining profi-

ciency in critical thinking and metacognitive skills related to argument structure and concepts.

The content to be explored will be scaffolded by the instructor in the early stages, through in-

class and online lessons and inter-activities, with an emphasis on increasingly student - led study

and the building of a learning community as the module progresses. In the later stages of the


module, the role of the instructor will be as an optional resource, and to keep struggling students

on task.

In the Introduction Module of the course students will become familiar with the skills and

concepts they will be learning, and the Moodle tools they will be using (blogs, forums and wikis)

to construct knowledge and artifacts as they proceed through a series of lessons and activities. In

the Research Module, students will divide into groups of two to four, based on their areas of

interest. In their groups, they will collectively choose an arguable topic to explore. From there,

they will collaboratively develop a wiki article from a neutral point of view, exploring all sides

of their topic. In order to scaffold their understanding of argument within writing, lessons and

quizzes, exemplars are employed to provide understanding. Once their wiki is complete, students

will individually choose a “side” of their argument, and write an argumentative essay using that

position. To bridge the gap between research and writing, a Knowledge Module will provide

students with the necessary knowledge of argument structure and make them aware of problems

and pitfalls specific to argument writing, such as logical fallacies. After completion of the

Knowledge Module students will draft and post their argument essays in a forum in the Writing

Module. To place emphasis on the process of writing, they will give and receive constructive,

criterion-based feedback, after which the essay will be revised, taking that peer feedback into

account. A culminating activity will be a series of debates within the physical classroom.

Throughout the entire process, students will write a reflective blog, monitoring their own

learning goals. They will identify gaps in their understanding and areas to focus on improvement

as they build their knowledge.

Our design activities are situated within cognitive and social constructivist theories.

Constructivists propose that learning environments should support multiple perspectives or


interpretations of reality, knowledge construction, and context-rich, experience-based activities

(Duffy & Jonassen, 1992). The process of writing resembles an authentic and situated activity

using professional practices and tools, and representing real-life complexities and occurrences

experienced by writers in creating written arguments. It is through these situated problems,

based in real world contexts, that students will be able to apply the knowledge acquired in this

course to other writing situations, therefore deepening their understanding (Anderson, Reder &

Simon, 1996; Jonassen, 1999). Through these authentic experiences, students develop ownership

of the problem, are more motivated, and better able to apply their knowledge to practice because

of the relevancy and meaningfulness of their learning (Jonassen, 1999).

This course also applies social constructivist principles by encouraging collaborative

negotiation of meaning and construction of knowledge through the socially-negotiated research

and fallacy wikis, and discussion forums. Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the zone of proximal de-

velopment suggests that students can move beyond individual abilities when knowledge is con-

structed through social negotiation with peers and knowledgeable others. Furthermore, reflection

and the act of sharing one’s thoughts uncovers inconsistencies or gaps in comprehension that, if

resolved, can lead to deeper understanding and knowledge (Von Glasersfeld, 1989). Throughout

the process of this course, students publicly discuss their thinking, prior knowledge, rationale,

observations, conclusions, gaps in knowledge, etc., resulting in perturbations that, if attended to,

can lead to greater understanding of the knowledge of argumentative writing. The class discus-

sions and debates create a community of practice as defined by Lave (1991), with the group shar-

ing similar goals and commitments, and assisting each other in joint projects and discussions in

the pursuit of improving their area of practice. Through modeling, coaching or sharing of

knowledge within a situated context, the instructor, a knowledgeable member of the community,


scaffolds the learning process (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). In this course, additional

scaffolding is provided by mini-lessons, templates, and rubrics to aid in research, argument, writ-

ing, reflection and discussion strategies and debate.

Having the primary educational activities framed within a blended learning environment

gives students the benefits and flexibility of both face-to-face and online instruction and interac-

tion. Based on this model, scaffolding and basic instruction will take place in the physical class-

room, with most of the educational activities occurring in online spaces, outside of classroom

hours. The Web 2.0 tools that we integrated into our design (blogs, wikis and asynchronous dis-

cussion forums) facilitate the social constructivist paradigm as evidenced by David Jonassen

(1996). Constructivist theory and design supports a variety of learners and encourages collabora-

tion in the acquisition of knowledge, and the negotiation of meaning and learning through social

interaction.

Intentions and Positions

To prepare for the post-school world, where answers do not always lie in the pages of

textbooks or words of a teacher, students must be empowered with critical thinking processes,

reasoning, and metacognitive skills.

In 2008, Tony Wagner identified critical thinking, online collaboration, oral and written

communication, accessing and analyzing information, curiosity, and flexibility as necessary em-

ployment skills currently lacking in students. Teaching these skills achieves key elements of the

BC Ministry of Education’s prescribed learning outcomes, and aligns with current constructivist

paradigms in academic literature (BC Ministry of Education, 2011). Moore (2004) states, “most

modern educators are of the view that the ability to think critically is fundamental to a good edu-

cation, and also fundamental to being an active and engaging citizen in the world” (p. 3).


Although there is no single agreed-upon model for teaching critical thinking, our ap-

proach is student-centered and uses activities that support Sternberg’s (1987) conclusion that the

most effective approaches offer limited instruction on specific process, leave room for discovery

and avoid stifling the creative thought process and trivializing the problem.

Kuhn, Shaw, and Felton (1997) found enhanced reasoning occurs when individuals deal

with areas of disagreement and agreement between peers, and that spontaneous metacognitive

awareness of one’s own and others’ mental processes contributes to the enhancement of

individual reasoning. This process of metacognition is “maybe the most remarkable cognitive

skill of all… because it allows good critical thinkers to improve their own thinking” (Facione,

2006, p. 6).

Collaborative and constructive blended learning environments are also well-documented

in educational literature as effective instructional methods to motivate and engage learners.

According to social constructivism theory, knowledge is generated through social discourse,

through which, we gradually accumulate advances in our levels of knowing (Kanuka & Ander-

son, 1998). Collaboration is more complex than allowing each person in the group to contribute;

it involves negotiating roles, overcoming disagreements, and differences in motivation and con-

tributions among group members (Kittle & Hicks, 2009). Theories of distributed cognition sug-

gest that all parties in a collaborative effort contribute elements in such a manner that the product

is more than a sum of its parts; knowledge can be constructed in a community in a way that it

could never be in the minds of disconnected individuals (Hutchins, 2000).

Collaborative activities can fail however. Kittle and Hicks (2009) note that to avoid fail-

ure, tasks must be structured appropriately, roles must be defined with the understanding they

may change, clearly-defined goals must be established along with the steps to achieve them, and


discussion and constructive feedback among collaborators must be encouraged. In the collabora-

tive Information Wiki Assignment in the Research Module, students are encouraged to reflect on

the collaborative and individual contributions to their wiki in their Reflective Blogs and com-

municate with one another using both synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in

Moodle (chat and forums). Both the blogs and the communications will be stored in the Moodle

for instructors to view. Knowledge of the permanence of these reflections and communications

should reduce the likelihood of tasks being dominated by some members while less-active stu-

dents either get a free ride or left behind.

Web 2.0 tools such as those employed in our course design aid in the facilitation of collab-

orative and metacognitive skills and support a constructive learning environment (Von

Glasersfeld, 1989), and the online written environment allows both students and teachers to ob-

serve the progress and development of the students’ reasoning processes. However, concerns are

often raised about the student privacy and security. To address such concerns, Moodle allows

students and instructors to control privacy settings while still making full use of these tools.

Within the Moodle platform, the design of the wiki, discussion forum, and blog inter-activities

enable easy, controlled access for a safe online environment.

To help ensure that students get the most they can from their activities in a controlled,

safe way, it is expected that students will adhere to the basic rules of Internet/network etiquette

or “netiquette” in all online actions. In general, these actions of “acting how you would in real

life”, as outlined by Shea in 1994, has been identified as a critical success factor for online

communities of practice (Gannon-Leary & Fontainha, 2007). Within the introduction and

writing module, there are scaffolding lessons on netiquette and constructive feedback,

respectively.


Wikis support a constructivist, collaborative paradigm where individuals form a

community of practice, learning from and building upon others’ knowledge by creating a fluid

and flexible collective work (Olliges, 2010; Grant, 2009; Parker & Chao, 2007; Ferris & Wilder,

2006). As learners create and edit their own and others’ contributions within a shared online

space, they work together to construct knowledge and negotiate meaning for an audience beyond

themselves and their teacher. Learners also engage in metacognitive practices by identifying

learning goals, recognizing problems and gaps in their own and the collective understanding and

then negotiating how to fix them (Grant, 2009; Parker & Chao, 2007). Several studies note

increased student engagement and motivation in classes where wiki activities were incorporated

(Heafner & Friedman, 2008; Mak & Coniam, 2008).

Although most researchers agree that wikis support a collaborative and constructive

environment, they also caution that they do not automatically create one (Olliges, 2010; Grant,

2009; Heafner & Friedman, 2008; Mak & Coniam, 2008; Park & Chao, 2007; Ferris & Wilder,

2006). Such environments must be nurtured by the teacher, not the technology (Grant, 2009;

Ferris & Wilder, 2006). Concerns over plagiarism and the validity of sources have also been

raised in regards to wikis (Mak & Coniam, 2008; Parker & Chou, 2007; Ferris & Wilder, 2006).

However, these concerns need not be viewed as faults, but rather opportunities to teach students

about critical evaluation and media literacy (Ferris &Wilder, 2006). The wiki activities in our

course are designed to increase student competencies with both the critical assessment of sources

and media literacy.

Blogging has been shown to develop metacognitive skills in students (Tan,

Ladyshewsky, and Gardner, 2010). To push the metacognitive abilities of students in this course

even more, students will make blog posts throughout the modules to self-evaluate their thinking


processes, and as an opportunity to engage in an authentic task, which can be shared with peers.

A reflection blog or “mirror blog” such as this one can also be a channel of communication for

both students, parents, and others (Zawilinski, 2009). It can be an online showcase or portfolio,

for an individual or entire online community (Shiang-Kwei, & Hui-Yin, 2008). The main

purpose of assigning student blogging activities in this course is to help them develop

metacognitively. In addition to the similar affordances of other parts of this course, blogging will

aid students in gaining a better understanding of what they think about, and why they think about

things in the ways that they do. Having a better understanding of their own thoughts will lead to

a deeper connection with the material they will cover and the ideas of peers they will encounter.

It is expected that as they examine their thoughts and responses to information and activities in

the course, they will recognize connections, gaps, and questions as they arise, and record them in

the blog (Ellison and Wu, 2008).

Student bloggers are advised to exercise caution, however. They are urged to behave ac-

cording to the rules of appropriate netiquette, and to protect themselves by limiting the amount of

personal information they share online. Such concerns are addressed in our course. Netiquette

rules are established at the onset of the course and privacy settings can be controlled by students,

and to a greater extent, by instructors. Students can set their own privacy settings, so that their

blogs can be viewed only by them, by participants in the course or by the world; instructors can

also restrict these settings, keeping privacy within the course only. In our Instructor’s notes, we

have recommended this for underage students.

Online forums will further enhance metacognitive and collaborative skills by enabling

students to post, reflect, and revise. Forums also support blended learning environments as they

can improve learning and academic performance when used as a compliment to traditional clas-


ses (Dengler, 2008; Trudeau, 2005; Shana, 2009; Zhang, Gao, Ring, & Zhang, 2007). The find-

ings of Hlas, Schuh, and Alessi (2008) and Dengler (2008) are also encouraging for EAL learn-

ers, as both suggest that forums provide these students with a voice and an opportunity to partic-

ipate where they normally would not in a traditional classroom environment. Since much of the

work is in print and is asynchronous, students have more time to translate if need be, and to

compose written work.

Advocates of forums do caution, however, that the topics of forums should be authentic,

clearly tied to the curriculum, and connected to in-class activities for students to understand the

value and purpose of the forums (Shana, 2009; Zhang et al., 2007; Trudeau, 2005; Li, 2004;

Tiene, 2000). Taking the advice of the experts, the forums in this course are designed for the

specific authentic tasks of making personal introductions, evaluating resources and the argument

essays constructed by peers. Intrinsic and extrinsic value is added through both informal and

formal evaluation increasing motivation and effort.

Key Concepts and Contexts

The target learners for this design are senior secondary students, but the course lends

itself well to adaptation; by removing or adding scaffolding, it could be modified to

accommodate students of all ages and abilities. While the design is currently applied to the

specific topic of “Making an Argument”, the content of the course could be changed entirely to

teach a different topic. The use of blogs, wikis, discussion forums, and in-class lessons to supply

appropriate and timely scaffolding would be useful components of courses in a wide range of

school subjects, or across different disciplines.

Today’s students are digital natives; they navigate the Internet with ease and many

independently engage in digital discourse using blogs and forums. Whether or not they have


engaged in online learning, students already possess the necessary skill set to do so - at least at a

basic level. These skills, familiarity with technology and English reading and writing ability, are

some of the most important in ensuring online success (Kelly, Kennel and McBride, 2007). An

online course for researching and writing about an arguable topic is an appropriate and practical

next step.

Although online learning has been a fairly smooth transition for college students due to

online literacy and ability to self-regulate and learn on their own, the literature is not as clear on

how elementary and secondary students will adapt. Maeroff (2004) states that the chance of

success in online learning is not as great among pre-collegiate students. In addition to the basic

skills required by online courses, many studies suggest that the best predictor of success in online

learning is self-regulation or metacognitive skills (Kelly, Kennel &McBride, 2007; Pintrich &

DeGroot, 1990; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007; Zimmerman & Marinez-Pons, 1990). This may

present a problem, as middle and high school students may lack the self-regulation needed to

succeed in an online environment. Developmental literature reviewed in Boekaert’s paper

suggests the ability to self-regulate one’s cognitive and metacognitive processes begins to

develop around the age of 12, which is also supported by Piaget’s formal operational stage

(Boekaert, 1997). Piaget (1972) and others believe that instruction and coaching can teach

students to self-regulate (Kelly, Kennel, McBride, 2007; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).

In order to improve student’s self-regulation skills and create a successful online learner, the

course instructs on metacognition and scaffolds learning through exemplars and templates. The

metacognitive and self-regulatory process of blogging equips them with the tools to become self-

directed learners.


In addition, student’s ability to self-regulate is dependent on their ability to formally

reason, a necessary skill in argumentative writing. Unlike narrative and expository writing,

argumentative writing poses a challenge to younger students due to its more demanding

cognitive nature (Crowhurst, 1990). Although our target students are older than Crowhurt’s

subjects, one could logically argue that the same problems and solutions would apply to middle

and high school students. Crowhurst claims that elementary students often lack proper support

for their reasons, organization of their argument and complexity of language (1990). However,

argumentative writing is an important skill and can be taught through instruction (Crowhurst,

1990). Crowhurst suggests instructing students in matters of argument and giving them practice.

She also suggests: encouraging ownership of topics; writing for an authentic audience, such as a

class or community; pre-writing so that information can be collected and discussed; and

exposure to exemplars of argumentative writing. The entire range of students would likely

benefit from these constructivist instructional principles. Within our project, students engage in

all five of these points, whereby they chose the topic, write for classmates, discuss their

arguments, pre-write and collect information in a wiki on the issue, and read exemplars and other

students’ argumentative writing.

One of the biggest adjustments to online learning, for both teachers and students, is that

the lack of face-to-face time makes it difficult to diagnose and resolve students’ confusion and

difficulty with materials, concepts or assignments (Wiesenberg, 1999). By choosing to use a

blended learning environment, the in-class portion provides a solution to this problem since

students can discuss issues with a teacher and other students in class.

Adapting the course to suit all learning styles would be impossible, as the focus of the

course is on researching and writing an argumentative essay, which appeals primarily to visual


learners who are more suited to dealing with text and images. However, there seems to be little

evidence to suggest that different learning styles affect success in online learning (Dziuban,

Moskall & Dziuban, 2000; Mareoff, 2004). Though the very processes of reading exemplars,

templates and peer essays, and writing the essay itself still inescapably remain geared towards

the visual learner, this mode can be balanced by the inclusion of other forms of instruction and

practice by the instructor in the classroom.

The central theme of making an argument is an ill-structured goal which fits the problem-

based learning model situated in a constructivist learning environment (Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T.

M., 1995). By breaking it down into a series of related activities within a collaborative frame-

work, learners will achieve knowledge and procedural goals which align with critical thinking

and metacognition. In this context, students will learn how to deepen their understanding and

better their reasoning on an issue, equipping them with the necessary tools to take a position in

an argument and support it with evidence.

Researching and writing an argumentative essay is a rich, open-ended problem with

multiple entry points and learning goals for both novices and experts (Bryson, Bereiter et al.,

1991). The ability to gather useful, verifiable information is a skill which students can carry with

them through their educational careers and beyond. Students will develop the skills necessary to

research honestly, accurately, efficiently, and objectively in order to formulate and strengthen

their arguments (Steneck, 2010). To promote critical thinking, teachers should act more as a

facilitator than instructor and avoid giving too much information or direction (Sternberg, 1987).

To encourage ownership and flexibility of the problem in our course, students will choose their

own topic. Moreover, students will research their topic from a neutral point of view before


choosing opposing views for their essays, reminding them that that there is no correct answer; all

answers are valid if they can be supported by reasons and evidence.

As students research a topic for their informational wiki, they can accomplish more than

if they were working individually, scaffolding towards a more formal composition (Kittle &

Hicks, 2009, p. 532). Through collaboration and immediate feedback, it is the interactions

among individuals and their varying opinions that improve reasoning (Kittle & Hicks, 2009;

Kuhn et al., 1997, Sternberg, 1987, Olliges, 2010; Heafner & Friedman, 2008). This process of

revision and feedback is an essential and recurring theme in the design of the course, taking

place in the wiki, blog, essay writing, and discussion activities.

The process of verifying thinking by means of self-evaluation or peer review allows

learners to scrutinize their reasoning for faulty logic, or to reassess their writing based on the

analysis of the importance of certain research or discoveries that came to light during the

composition process (Facione, 2006). The spontaneous metacognitive awareness of the learners’

own and others’ mental processes which occurs during wiki and forum activities, as students

continually reassess and refine content and rhetorical problems within their arguments,

contributes as significantly to the enhancement of reason as engagement in discussion over

varying points of view (Bryson, Bereiter, Scardamalia, & Joram, 1991, Kuhn et al., 1997).

Interactivities

The interactivities for this course are contained in a Moodle course titled “Beyond the

Classroom - Making an Argument”, which can be accessed at:

http://moodle.met.ubc.ca/course/view.php?id=233.

Verifications

http://moodle.met.ubc.ca/course/view.php?id=233


The method of verification of the design is modeled after the analysis in a similar

experiment, Knudson’s 1992 paper, “Analysis of Argumentative Writing at Two Grade

Levels”. The experiment required students to write two argumentative essays, one before and

one after a course instructing in argument. Knudson employed two methods to analyze the

completed essays, one holistic and the other based on the Toulmin method, each evaluating the

overall strength and specific components of argumentative writing (1992). In our verification,

rubrics similar to Knudson’s are utilized in the writing module of the course to analyze the

before and after essays.

Although our course comprises various modules including research, argument analysis,

debate and metacognitive reflection, the entire design is created to improve student’s reasoning

and organization skills in writing an argumentative essay. In order to verify the overall

effectiveness of the course, student essays could be analyzed before and after completion. To

control for variables, the essays must be written with clear instruction, time must be given to

research the topic, and there must be a common familiarity with the topic knowledge. This would

control for variables in student’s interest in topic, knowledge about topic and interpretation of

assignment. The initial assignment could be to write an essay, composed for the principal,

arguing for or against a four-day school week or a school rule. The essay topics should be

different before and after to control for the variable of practice that may influence the

result. Due to the prohibitive nature of the considerable amounts of time and effort required to

employ the above assessment practice, surveys gathering self reports of learning and course

effectiveness from students and teachers may be more pragmatic. Although surveys are not

always the most accurate assessment tool, appropriately worded survey questions can be helpful

in assessing student’s learning and gathering information which can be applied to improving the


design of this and future courses. For this course, there are four surveys, a pre and post survey

for instructors and a pre and post survey for students, focusing on student’s learning and areas of

improvement. Many of the questions are repeated in both the pre and post surveys allowing for

students, instructors and course designers to compare and critically reflect on any significant

differences between the answers.

Group Reflection

Our group’s process for creating our course was modeled after the principles and

activities we intended to promote in the course we were creating. We made conscious efforts to

use both synchronous and asynchronous discussion in our process, as our project employs both

of these tools as well. Some elements of the design project were divided up according to our

individual strengths, allowing each person to work autonomously on content. After being

uploaded to Moodle, materials would be discussed via email and appropriate edits would be

made, usually by the original author. Other parts were written collaboratively using Google Docs,

a tool which we also used to edit the individually-authored elements as a group. Additionally,

hundreds of emails were sent among group members to organize and plan chats, discuss

decisions about content, assign tasks, raise questions for discussion, share resources, and define

connections between content and supporting literature.

This collaborative, cooperative process resulted in a truly co-authored course in which all

elements had been constructed or at least edited by all members of the group, and helped us to

better understand how to present materials to our students as we asked them to engage in a

similar blend of individual and collaborative activities.

There were occasional points of disagreement in interpreting the requirements of the

assignment or determining what should or should not be edited. In such moments, our group


members practiced effective and courteous evaluation and feedback practices, taking time to

articulate opinions without stepping on toes. The degree of respect and cooperation among our

group members made the process of creation and editing a rewarding and democratic one, and

our disagreements generated worthwhile discussions, which led to deeper understanding of our

design, its affordances, and its purpose.


References

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education.

Educational Researcher, 25, 5-11.

Curriculum packages by grade (n.d.). British Columbia Ministry of Education Website.

Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/gc.php?lang=en

Bryson, M., Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., & Joram, E. (1991). Going beyond the problem as

given: Problem solving in expert and novice writers. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch

(Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 61-84). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the

crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning,

and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dengler, M. (2008). Classroom active learning complemented by an online discussion forum

to teach sustainability. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(3), 481-494.

Duffy, T.M., and Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A

conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellison, N., & Wu, Y. (2008). Blogging in the classroom: A preliminary exploration of student

attitudes and impact on comprehension. Journal of Educational Multimedia and

Hypermedia, 17(1) 99-122.

Facione, P. A., (2006). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Retrieved from

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf

Ferris, S., & Wilder, H. (2006). Uses and potentials of wikis in the classroom. Innovate:


Journal of Online Education, 2(5).

Gannon-Leary, P., & Fontainha, E., (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning

communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors. eLearning Papers, No. 5.

Grant, L. (2009). 'I DON'T CARE DO UR OWN PAGE!' A case study of using wikis for

collaborative work in a UK secondary school. Learning, Media & Technology, 34(2),

105-117.

Heafner, T. L., & Friedman, A. M. (2008). Wikis and constructivism in secondary social

studies: Fostering a deeper understanding. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 288-302.

Hlas, A., Schuh, K., & Alessi, S. (2008). Native and non-native speakers in online and

face-to-face discussions: Leveling the playing field. Journal of Educational

Technology Systems, 36(4), 337-373.

Hutchins, E. (2000). Distributed cognition. Retrieved from http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~

drwhite/Anthro179a/DistributedCognition.pdf

Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as

cognitive tools. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational

communications and technology (pp. 693–720). New York: Macmillan Press.

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kanuka, H. & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge

construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1).

Kittle, P., & Hicks, T. (2009). Transforming the group paper with collaborative online writing.

Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and


Culture, 9(3), 525-538.

Knudson, R.E. (1992). Analysis of argumentative writing at two grade levels. The Journal of

Educational Research, 85, 169-179.

Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative

reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15 (1997), 287–315.

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine,

& S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Washington, D.C.:

American Psychological Association, 63-84.

Li, Q. (2004). Knowledge building community: Keys for using online forums. TechTrends:

Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(4), 24-28.

Mark, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among

secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437-455.

Moore, Tim, (2004). The critical thinking debate: How general are general thinking skills?

Higher Education Research Development, 23(1), 3-18.

Olliges, R. (2010). Wikis and collaboration: Are they a mix? Journal of Philosophy & History of

Education, 6077-80.

Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Knowledge & Learning Objects, 357-372.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its

constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.

Shana, Z. (2009). Learning with technology: Using discussion forums to augment a

traditional-style class. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 214-228.

Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. San Rafael, CA: Albion. Retrieved April 3, 2011, from


http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html

Shiang-Kwei, W., & Hui-Yin, H. (2008). Reflections on using blogs to expand in-class

discussion. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(3),

81-85.

Sternburg, R.J. (1987). Teaching critical thinking: Eight easy ways to fail before you begin.

Phi Delta Kappan International, 68(6), 456-459.

Tan, M.S., Ladyshewsky, R.K., & Gardner, P. (2010). Using blogging to promote clinical

reasoning and metacognition in undergraduate physiotherapy fieldwork programs.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 355-368.

Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to

face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4),

371-384.

Trudeau, R. (2005). Get them to read, get them to talk: Using discussion forums to enhance

student learning. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(3), 289-322.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010).

Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and

review of online learning studies. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80,

121-140.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, Tony. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach


the new survival skills our children need – And what we can do about it. New York, NY:

Basic Books.

Zawilinski, L. (2009). HOT blogging: A framework for blogging to promote higher order

thinking. Reading Teacher, 62(8), 650-661.

Zhang, T., Gao, T., Ring, G., & Zhang, W. (2007). Using online discussion forums to assist a

traditional English class. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(4), 623-643.

Beyond the classroom: Using a blended learning environment ... · The central focus of our design...

Documents

Transcript of Beyond the classroom: Using a blended learning environment ... · The central focus of our design...