Beyond the Classroom: Using a Blended Learning Environment to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing...

7/27/2019 Beyond the Classroom: Using a Blended Learning Environment to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing Skills

1/23

Running Head: BEYOND THE CLASSROOM

0 | P a g e

Beyond the Classroom: Using a Blended Learning Environment to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing Skills

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

ETEC 510

Diane Janes

April 4, 2011


2/23


1 | P a g e

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 the primary learning objectives of

critical thinking and metacognitive skills.

A main goal of our design project is to create a module for a blended learning

environment that 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 module 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 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

proficiency 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


3/23


2 | P a g e

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.


4/23


3 | P a g e

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. Vygotskys (1978) theory of the zone of

proximal development suggests that students can move beyond individual abilities when

knowledge is constructed through social negotiation with peers and knowledgeable others.

Furthermore, reflection and the act of sharing ones 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 discussions and debates create a community of

practice defined by Lave (1991) as a group, sharing similar goals and commitments, assisting


5/23


4 | P a g e

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, writing, 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

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

classroom, 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 discussion forums) facilitate the social constructivist paradigm as evidenced by

David Jonassen (1996). Constructivist theory and design supports a variety of learners and

encourages collaboration 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

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


6/23


5 | P a g e

the BC Ministry of Educations 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 education, and also fundamental to being an active and engaging ci tizen in the world

(p. 3). Although there is no single agreed-upon model for teaching critical thinking, our

approach is student- centered and uses activities that support Sternbergs (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 occurrs when individuals deal

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

metacognitive awareness of ones own and others mental processes contribute s to the

enhancement of individual reasoning . This process of metacognition is maybe the most

remarkable cognitive skill of all because it al lows 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 intercourse,

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

Anderson, 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 contributions among group members (Kittle & Hicks, 2009). Theories of

distributed cognition suggest that all parties in a collaborative effort contribute elements in


7/23


6 | P a g e

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 failure,

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

collaborative 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 communicate 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 students either get a free ride or left behind.

Although Web 2.0 tools aid in the facilitation of collaborative and metacognitive skills and

support a constructive learning environment (Von Glasersfeld, 1989). The online written

environment allows both students and teachers to observe 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.


8/23


7 | P a g e

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 and 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


9/23


8 | P a g e

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 idea of having students keep blogs, however, 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

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


10/23


9 | P a g e

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 classes (Dengler, 2008; Trudeau, 2005; Shana, 2009; Zhang, Gao, Ring, & Zhang,

2007). The findings of Hlas, Schuh, and Alessi (2008) and Dengler (2008) are also encouraging

for EAL learners, as both suggest that forums provide these students with a voice and an

opportunity to participate 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.


11/23


10 | P a g e

Key Concepts and ContextsThe 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.

Todays 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 lessens with 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 &


12/23


11 | P a g e

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 Boekaerts paper suggests the

ability to self- regulate ones cognitive and metacognitive process es begins to develop around

the age of 12, which is also supported by Piagets 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 students 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, students 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 Crowhurts

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


13/23


14/23


13 | P a g e

framework, 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


15/23


14 | P a g e

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 ment al 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 .

VerificationThe method of verification of the design is modelled after the analysis in a similar

experiment, Knudsons 1992 paper, Analysis of Argu mentative 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
http://moodle.met.ubc.ca/course/view.php?id=233http://moodle.met.ubc.ca/course/view.php?id=233http://moodle.met.ubc.ca/course/view.php?id=233


16/23


15 | P a g e

verification, rubrics similar to Knudsons 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 students

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 students 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 4 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 students 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 students 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.


17/23


16 | P a g e

Group ReflectionOur groups process for creating our course was modelled 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, a multitide 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


18/23


17 | P a g e

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

our design, its affordances, and its purpose.


19/23


18 | P a g e

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


20/23


19 | P a g e

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


21/23


20 | P a g e

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


22/23


21 | P a g e

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.

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.


23/23


22 | P a g e

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 dont 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 to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing...

Documents

Transcript of Beyond the Classroom: Using a Blended Learning Environment to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing...