THE INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF BLOGS AND WIKIS

FOR K-12 STUDENTS

RENA A. SHIFFLET

A Dissertation Submitted in PartialFulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY

2008THE INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF BLOGS AND WIKIS

FOR K-12 STUDENTS

i

Rena A. Shifflet

221 Pages May 2008

The purpose of this study was to investigate how blogs and/or wikis were used by

K-12 classroom teachers, how these teachers determined when and why to use these

technologies with their students, and teachers’ perceptions of how these tools affected

students and student writing. With the understanding that technology and the resulting

literacies are changing at an ever increasing rate, this researcher chose to look deeper into

the intent for utilizing these tools for student instruction.

Using a qualitative case study approach, eight K-12 teachers were interviewed for

this study. In addition, teacher-generated and student-generated blogs and/or wikis were

examined. Data analysis suggested that the availability of an authentic audience was

significant motivation for participants to choose to use blogs and/or wikis with their

students. Evidence of other perceived student impact is also discussed.

Since blogs and wikis are web-based applications and considered to be forms of

technology, this study also probed to find the reasons behind teachers’ determination to

use technology in lieu of other methods of instruction. Evidence from this study

suggested that the participants’ intents for using a blog or wiki were in accord with their

determination of when to use technology for instructional purposes. The researchers’

pedagogical beliefs were also in play. These findings add a deeper complexity to previous

knowledge about the influence of pedagogical beliefs on the instructional use of

technology.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First I must thank my participants. I continue to be awed by the generosity of educators to

share their knowledge and experience in order to help others. Their willingness to allow

me to question and probe their instructional use and beliefs about technology serve as a

testament to their motivation to be life-long learners. I have no doubt that their stories

will serve as an inspiration to others.

A very special thank you goes to my dissertation chair, Dr. Cheri Toledo. When I

first met Cheri five years ago, I knew I had found a kindred spirit. She not only

understood, but shared my passion for teaching and learning with technology. Over time

she has been my teacher, mentor, collaborator, advisor, and most of all a cherished friend.

While her role as chair may have ended, her other roles have not as I will have the good

fortune to continue to work with her in higher education.

I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Ellen Spycher and

Dr. Tony Lorsbach. Every doctoral candidate should be as fortunate as I was to have this

perfect committee. They offered me direction when I felt totally lost. They offered me

encouragement when I thought there was no end in sight. Their comments and

suggestions helped to make my work richer. They will always have my deepest respect

and admiration for their abilities and professionalism as educators.

Most importantly, I must express my sincere appreciation for my family,

especially my husband, Michael. He never once questioned why a retired teacher would

want to pursue yet another degree. He did everything in his power to make it easier for

me to concentrate on completing this work; from doing household chores, making dinner,

iii

iv

running errands, to spending hours and hours alone. He was a constant source of faith and

encouragement. There is no possible way I could have done this without him. As for my

daughter Katie, who has also chosen to enter this marvelous field of teaching, I hope she

will always pursue her dreams and challenge herself. She has always made me proud to

be her mom.

Thank you. Two words that imply so much, but often fall short of expressing the

reality of the heart-felt emotion they are intended to express. To all of those who helped,

encouraged, and cheered me on this journey, both on Earth and from above, these two

little words will have to suffice; for no amount of words can covey my gratitude for your

kind and seemingly endless support and generosity.

R. A. S.

v

CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i

CONTENTS v

TABLES x

FIGURES xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

The State of Writing 1

Literacy and Technology 3Literacy in the Context of School 7Current Research 8Summary 9

Statement of the Problem 10Research Questions 11Purpose of the Study 11Operational Definitions 12Significance of the Study 12Organization of the Study 13

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14

Student Writing 14

Quality of Student Writing 15Student Attitudes 18Quantity of Student Writing 20

Writing Process 22Revision 24The Teaching of Writing 25Electronic Writing 31Writing with Weblogs 35

vi

Research on Weblogs in Education 39Empirical Research 39Anecdotal Accounts 40

Wikis 43Constructivism 47

Constructivism in Education 49Constructivism, Writing, and Technology 53

Summary 56

III. METHODOLOGY 59

Qualitative Case Study Design 59Role as Researcher 61Participant Selection 62Data Sources 63Collection Procedures 65Data Analysis 65Summary 68

IV. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS 69

Katie 69

Determination to Use Technology 71Katie’s Project Description 71Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 72Student Preparation 73Student Impact 73Concerns 76Overview 77

Mike 79

Determination to Use Technology 80Mike’s Project Description 80Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 83Student Preparation 83Student Impact 83Concerns 85Future Uses 86Summary 86

Grant 87

vii

Determination to Use Technology 87Grant’s Project Description 88Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 90Student Preparation 91Student Impact 92Overview 92

Rita 96

Determination to Use Technology 97Rita’s Project Description 97Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 100Student Preparation 101Student Impact 101Overview 102

Evan 103

Determination to Use Technology 103Evan’s Project Description 104Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 106Student Preparation 107Student Impact 108Concerns 109Overview 110

Donna 111

Determination to Use Technology 112Donna’s Project Description 112Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 113Student Impact 114Concerns 114Overview 115

Jeff 116

Determination to Use Technology 117Jeff’s Project Description 117Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 118Student Preparation 119Student Impact 120Overview 121

viii

David 122

Determination to Use Technology 123David’s Project Description 123Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis 126Student Preparation 127Student Impact 127Overview 131

V. DISCUSSION 136

Research Question 1: How Participants Used Blogs and/or Wikis in the Classroom 136Research Question 1a: What was the Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis? 139Research Question 1b: How and to What Extent Do These Tools Support Constructivist Learning Theory? 146

Learning is Relevant and Meaningful to Students 147Activities Should Be Authentic and Are Often Problem-Based 148Student Inquiry is Encouraged to Promote Knowledge Construction 149Enable Learners to Interpret Multiple Perspectives 149Collaboration is Encouraged 150Encourage and Accept Student Autonomy 152

Research Question 2: Student Preparation to Use Blogs or Wikis 154

Audience Awareness 154Online Safety 156Writing Style Differences 156Comment Modeling 157Digital Ethics 158Procedural Instruction 158Collaborative Ownership and Accountability 158

Research Question 3: How and to What Extent are Blogs or Wikis Structured to Promote or Enrich Student Writing? 159

Access to an Authentic Audience 159Authentic Purpose 163Opportunity to Write 164Publishing Forum 165Application of Language Skills 165Use of Mentors 165

ix

Collaboration Venue 166Research Question 4: How Do K-12 Teachers Perceive These Tools Have Impacted Their Students? 166

Katie 168Mike 169Rita 169Grant 170Evan 170Donna 171Jeff 171

Summary 172Limitations 172Conclusions 173

Audience 173

Commentary 174

Student Writing 176Intent 177

Implications 179Final Thoughts 180

REFERENCES 182

APPENDIX A: Consent Letter 201

APPENDIX B: Example of Scribe Post 203

APPENDIX C: Class Survey for David’s Mathematics Class 218

x

TABLES

Table Page

1. Participant Demographic Information 70

2. Breakdown of Tool Uses 137

3. Participant Quotes Illustrating Determination to Use Technology,Intent for Using Bogs or Wikis, and Pedagogical Beliefs 140

4. Participant Beliefs that Promote a Constructivist Learning Environment 147

5. How Do Teachers Prepare Their Students to use Blogs or Wikis? 155

6. How and to What Extent are Blogs or Wikis Structured to Promoteor Enrich Student Writing? 160

7. How Do K-12 Teachers Perceive These Tools Have ImpactedTheir Students? 167

8. What is the Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis? 168

xi

FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Post from Katie’s class blog 75

2. Blog with New Zealand kindergarteners 76

3. Mike’s post on his blog 81

4. Post from Mike’s class blog 84

5. Comments from Mike’s students 85

6. A pioneer journal post 89

7. Screen shot of a self-initiated writing post 94

8. Screen shot of Kitty’s original post on Gordon’s blog 95

9. Screen shot from a junior high class blog in reference to Kitty’s post 96

10. A student post and comments for the area of a geometric figure 99

11. A student post in Rita’s class and two comments 102

12. Collaborative book blog 105

13. A book review post by a student 107

14. Blogging on blogging example 126

15. Post from David’s class blog 130

16. First post from David’s professional blog 132

17. Second post from David’s professional blog 133

18. A comment from a university blogging buddy to one of Katie’s students 151

xii

19. Class blog with one-way vs. two-way commenting 152

20. Rita’s post on making quality comments 157

21. A post from Evan’s book blog 162

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will present the background of the problem, which includes: the state

of writing, literacy and technology, and literacy in the context of school. In addition, the

statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the definition

of terms, and the significance of the study will be presented.

The State of Writing

Writing today is not a frill for the few, but an essential skill for the many. (National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, 2003, p. 11)

The National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools and

Colleges, conducted a series of annual reports to Congress as an endeavor to monitor

writing in the classroom, as well as the workplace (National Commission on Writing in

America's Schools and Colleges, 2005). The Commission released its benchmark report,

The Neglected “R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution, in 2003. Their goal was to

identify and define the role of writing in education and make recommendations for its

improvement at all levels of instruction.

In the analysis, the Commission found time to be a significant challenge to the

teaching and learning of writing. Citing data from the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) conducted in 1998, the amount of time fourth graders spent writing was

equal to 15% of the time they watched television. As for seniors in high school, less than

half were required to write a paper with three or more pages as a monthly English

assignment. Teacher responsibility for 120 to 200 students on a daily or weekly basis was

1

2

the reason given for the departure of the once traditional, senior research project. While

data for the 2002 NAEP Writing results showed an increase in scores rated as basic for

fourth and eighth graders, scores for twelfth graders declined. However, this is still a cause

for guarded optimism as 76% of high school seniors did not achieve a proficient level: the

ability to demonstrate “competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-

matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical

skills appropriate to subject matter” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003, p. 2).

Fourth and eighth grades also had a high number of students who did not attain a level

deemed proficient. It is not that students are unable to write; it was that they do not have

the ability to write at an expected level of mastery in today’s world (National Commission

on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, 2003).

This report called for the nation’s leaders to place writing at the center of the

school agenda and provide the necessary resources to support and sustain this initiative.

In the massive school improvement venture, which began with A Nation at Risk (1983),

writing did not receive the attention it deserves. The Commission equated writing to

learning, as student writing not only served as a means to demonstrate knowledge; it was

also a means for knowledge construction. “Writing is how students connect the dots in

their knowledge” (National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges,

2003, p. 3).

In 2004, the Commission released its second report to Congress, Writing: A Ticket

to Work…or a Ticket Out. Data for this report was obtained from a survey of 120 major

American corporations responsible for employing almost 8 million people. The report

classified jobs into three categories: salaried, service, and hourly positions. While writing

3

was a universal requirement for all service employees, between one-third and one-fifth of

all service employees were required to write in their profession. As for salaried

employees, writing was determined to be a gatekeeper. Without adequate writing skills,

such employees would not be around long enough to even be considered for a promotion.

The Commission emphasized the importance of writing skills for individuals across all

segments of the population in order to prevent low-skill, low-wage positions from

becoming their destiny.

Writing: A Powerful Message for State Government (2005) was the third in the

series of reports from the National Commission on Writing. Survey data were obtained

for 49 of the 50 state human resource directors. The ability for government employees to

write in a clear and accurate manner was found to be more critical than for those in the

private sector; as the audience for government employees can range from constituents

with advanced degrees, to those who have dropped out of school. For this reason, writing

ability plays a significant role in the hiring and retention of state employees.

The latest work from the National Commission on Writing addressed writing and

school reform. This report highlighted the tension and frustration felt by educators to

meet the requirements mandated in No Child Left Behind. “The views expressed by these

participants were uncompromising: Standardization of curriculum and scripting of

instruction devalue teaching and diminish opportunities to embed best writing practice in

the classroom” (National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges,

2006, p. 13).

Despite the expressed, restrictive demands of standardization, members of the

2004 report, Writing: A Ticket to Work…or a Ticket Out, acknowledged and supported

4

the recommendation of the 2003 Commission for more instructional time devoted toward

writing. Technology also received considerable attention and discussion from the 2004

Commission. Beyond the original view of technology as a possible means of increasing

time for writing, the Commission viewed technology as a means of connecting with peers

outside the local community. In addition, the Commission encouraged teachers to take

advantage of the motivational factor of blogs and instant messaging to help student

develop and promote competency in writing.

Agencies have also solicited the opinions of the general public. In 2005, the

National Writing Project commissioned Learning to Write, Writing to Learn: Americans’

Views of Writing in Our Schools, a national public survey to determine America’s stance

on writing and writing education. Respondents viewed writing as a priority and believed

writing instruction should begin early in a child’s education and occur consistently across

all disciplines. They contended the amount or type of writing instruction should not be

dependent on a student’s career choice, as the ability to write well was essential for

developing reading, communication, and thinking. The public saw writing as a critical

skill necessary to reach a desired level of success in life.

These reports provide a good indication of the state of writing in America and

attest to the importance of writing in every aspect of life. The 2003 Commission

acknowledged that while citizens may not consider themselves to be writers, they do not

dismiss writing as an essential component of their professions. However, the modern

workplace requires a new language (New London Group, 1996) brought on by key,

dramatic changes: global economic change; a move from a top-down management style

to one of teamwork and collaboration; and revolutionary changes in technology (Klantzis

5

& Cope, 2001). Klantzis and Cope (2001) suggest preparing students to be assertive

partners in this contemporary worklife, instead of the submissive, regimented labors of

the industrial age. Globalization of the marketplace and new communication technologies

find the traditional, stagnant definitions of literacy insufficient (International Reading

Association, 2002; Tyner, 1998). This presents a challenge for today’s literacy pedagogy.

Literacy and Technology

“Literacy is the flexible and sustainable mastery of a repertoire of practices with

the texts of traditional and new communications technologies via spoken language, print,

and multimedia” (Luke & Freebody, 2000, p. 9). While this definition of literacy may

appear useful, Anstey and Bull (2006) assert it is missing the critical component of

context; contexts that would include work, social, civic, cultural, and community

activities (p. 20). An individual must know what is required, perform as expected, and

conduct himself appropriately depending on the literacy necessary for that situation

(Luke & Freebody, 2000; Warschauer, 1999). Being literate will depend on an

individual’s ability to combine and recombine existing literacies for new contexts created

by an ever changing world (Anstey & Bull, 2006; Luke & Freebody, 2000).

Throughout history, the essence of literacy has changed as a direct result of new

forms of communication and technology (Anstey & Bull, 2006; International Reading

Association, 2002; Klantzis & Cope, 2001; Leu Jr. & Kinzer, 2000; Tapscott, 1998).

“Literacy is rapidly and continuously changing as new technologies for information and

communication repeatedly appear and new envisionments for exploiting these

technologies are continuously crafted by users” (Leu Jr., 2000, p. 743). Leu (2000)

credits the pressure to remain competitive in today’s global economy as the impetus

6

behind these continually changing technologies and a guarantee for a perennial cycle of

change. He points out that as the speed and efficiency of these new technologies

facilitate, encourage, and even necessitate communication, users envision unique uses for

these new technologies; in effect lessening the time between cycles of change.

The 21st century rode in on the coattails of a technological revolution unlike any

that had came before, and affected every aspect of life (Brown, Bryan, & Brown, 2005;

Kellner, 2000; Klantzis & Cope, 2001). Whereas the preceding revolution was a result of

harnessing the mechanical powers of steam, this latest upheaval, deemed the knowledge

revolution, emerged from the power of information, knowledge, and networks

(Warschauer, 1999, p. 9). Current literacy demands require more than mastery of

traditional printed text literacies. Literacy today requires not only the ability to consume

multimodal texts (Huijser, 2006; Klantzis & Cope, 2001), which include audio and visual

text and images, but the ability to produce such multimodal texts as well (Anstey & Bull,

2006; Brown, Bryan, & Brown, 2005). In 1996, the New London Group coined the term

multiliteracies to address the effects of technologies, such as multimedia and hypermedia,

as well as increased globalization and social diversity. This group maintains that

pedagogical practice of multiliteracies can prepare students to be actively engaged in their

social futures and be designers of such futures as well. Klantzis & Cope (2001) view multi-

literacies as vehicles to enhance and expand the instruction of literacy for the 21st century.

Warschauer (1999) maintains that literacy is not “a set of context-neutral, value-

free skills that can be imparted to individuals” (p. 1). The influences of societies, cultures,

and contexts cannot be ignored, for it is these influences that meld with technological

changes to delineate literacy (New London Group, 1996). Increased access to the Internet

7

is one of the most significant factors affecting reading and writing in the world today

(Corio, 2003; International Reading Association, 2002; Leu & Corio, 2004). The

potential information and computer technologies (ICTs) resulting from the potency of the

Internet have served as the catalyst for an increase in new literacies (Leu Jr., 2000; Luke

& Freebody, 2000; Warschauer, 1999). This ever-growing inventory of new literacies is

continually evolving as those literacies considered new today will be replaced by even

newer literacies tomorrow (Leu Jr., 2000).

Literacy in the Context of School

Tyner (1998) suggests just as an agreement could not be reached for a definition

of literacy in previous years, technology will continue to cloud efforts to define these new

literacies. Due to the constant flux of literacy, it is important to keep in mind that any

attempts to redefine literacy must be more than simply adding on to existing literacy

practices (Hagood, Stevens, & Reinking, 2002, p. 82). Hagood et al. (2002) contend that

while adult perceptions of literacies do not reflect those used by adolescents in their

personal lives, adults impose their traditional curricular, school, and worked-based

literacies onto adolescents nonetheless. This creates a disconnect between those literacies

used by students in school and those they use outside of school. This can create a barrier

when teachers want to relate to their students within the context of school (Kinzer, 2003).

Teachers who want to signify acceptance and valuing of their students’ everyday literacy practices are best able to do so by demonstrating an understanding of the literacies that form an important part of students’ lives. Lack of knowledge about IM, avatars, activeworlds, text messaging, MP3 downloads, and the like distances teachers from the students they want to reach. And not knowing how to use the Internet to facilitate learning makes one less of a professional than one could be. (Kinzer, 2003, Teachers as Relevant in Students’ Eyes section, ¶ 2)

8

This disconnect between what students view as literacy in school and literacy at

home enables a second conflict between the haves and the have nots (Hagood, Stevens, &

Reinking, 2002; Kellner, 2000; Kinzer, 2003). Students’ technological capacities and

competencies are directly influenced by their social and school contexts (Ba, Tally, &

Tsikalas, 2002). Students who are unable to overcome the absence of new literacies in

their lives outside of school “will be left out of the emerging economy, networked

society, and culture” (Kellner, 2000, p. 249). The undeniable fact that technology is

altering nearly every facet of our social, educational, and professional lives (Kellner,

2000), coupled with the fact that technology facilitates educational possibilities not easily

accomplished without it (Kinzer, 2003), makes a strong case for the inclusion of tech-

nology in literacy instruction. Kellner (2000) cautions that it is not technology itself that

matters, but rather how that technology is used. Educators must determine how to utilize

information and computer technologies (ICTs) to effectively address the educational and

social demands of multiple literacies as they prepare students for an increasingly inter-

dependent and global world (Brown, Bryan, & Brown, 2005). “The education pendulum

continues to swing. Technology, however, leads the way in creating new tracks for the

pendulum as it expands the Greek community of literates to include a global network of

lifelong learners” (Brown, Bryan, & Brown, 2005, Conclusion section, ¶ 3).

Current Research

In Writing into the 21st Century: An Overview of Research on Writing, 1999 to

2004, Juzwik, Crucic, Wolbers, Moxley, Dimling, and Shankland (2006), analyzed the

research on writing. In an analysis of the types of problems studied in the research,

technology surfaced as a significant area of concern. Yet very few studies examined

9

technology as the central factor to be investigated. “Given the rapid changes in digital

technologies in the recent years, we would expect technologies and writing to be a high

priority on the agendas of writing researchers” (p. 469). In addition, Juzwik et al. (2006)

found postsecondary and undergraduate students to be the dominant populations of the

studies that were analyzed. The authors felt this was disconcerting as significant language

acquisition and development take place at P-12 levels.

Likewise, Williams and Jacobs (2004) and Trammel and Ferdig (2004) make note

of the lack of refereed published material on the educational uses of blogs. There is,

however, an abundance of articles, books, and other resources written by education

practitioners on the topics of blogs and wikis (i.e., J. Oravec, 2003; V. Richardson, 2003;

Seitzinger, 2006). While there may be a shortage of empirical research regarding blogs

and wikis in K-12, it is not the case for higher education, especially in conjunction with

pre-service teacher education (i.e., Boling, 2005a; Du & Wagner, 2007b; Sade, 2005;

Wrede, 2003). In this learning environment, blogs are often used as a replacement for the

traditional reflective journal, as they serve to reinforce this accepted practice (Williams &

Jacobs, 2004).

Summary

The ramifications for education are substantial as unimagined technologies make

it nearly impossible to predict what literacies will be necessary twelve years from now

when the current class of Kindergarteners graduates from high school (International

Reading Association, 2002); a situation that Antsey & Bull (2006) describe as a “climate

of constant change” (p. 18). Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2004) describe literacy as

a moving target (p. 1584), continually changing societal expectations for a literate citizen.

10

As these expectations change, the definitions of literacy must also change in order to

meet such shifting demands. Professional and personal success will rest on the ability to

effectively and critically utilize new literacies generated from information and communi-

cation technologies (International Reading Association, 2002). Much remains to be

learned before educators, administrators, and parents can provide all students with the

environments necessary to become literate, productive citizens of the 21st century

(Penrod, 2007).

Statement of the Problem

The ability to write is receiving greater emphasis in all aspects of life: social,

professional, and educational. Despite this awareness, students across grade levels are

unable to perform at an accepted level of mastery on national tests. Globalization of the

world’s market, along with rapid advances in communication technologies, has made the

traditional definition of literacy insufficient. The ability to read and write text on a paper

medium, while still important, is not enough to succeed in this ever-changing society. In

Chapter II, the review of the literature will show that student writing improves when they

write for an authentic purpose and an authentic audience. This literature review will also

show that students learn best in constructivist learning environments where they can

collaborate with experts as well as peers, and take ownership of their learning. Blogs and

wikis have the potential to provide the type of environment that can facilitate student

writing and enhance the construction of knowledge, but there is little empirical research

available to substantiate this claim.

Research Questions

1. How are K-12 teachers utilizing blogs and/or wikis in the classroom?

11

a. What is the intent or purpose for using blogs and/or wikis?b. To what extent do these tools support constructivist learning theory?c. How do teachers prepare their students to use blogs and wikis?

2. To what extent are blogs or wikis structured to promote/enrich student writing?

3. How do K-12 teachers perceive these tools have impacted their students?

Purpose of the Study

This study was designed to examine how blogs and wikis are being used by K-12

classroom teachers. As the review of the literature in Chapter II will show, it is widely

accepted that technology is highly motivating for students. This study attempted to ascer-

tain if teachers go beyond this fact when selecting to use blogs and/or wikis. In addition,

their intent or purpose was investigated to determine whether it is based on a foundation

of educational theory, learning standards or is simply a matter of entertainment. This

study was an effort to fill the existing lack of research regarding the use of these tools as

well as provide an insight into the thought processes teachers may use to determine when

and why to use technology with students.

This study showed that blogs and wikis have the potential to offer student writers an

authentic audience other than their peers and classroom teacher. Goddard (2002) points

out that computers should serve as a tool to provide curricular support and create learning

environments that support real-world applications, inquiry, and communication. These

suggested purposes are among instructional practices closely aligned with constructivism

(Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999). This association between computers and

constructivism was examined for a connection to the use of blogs and/or wikis for student

writing.

Operational Definitions

12

Weblog or blog: in its simplest form “is a website with dated entries, presented in

reverse chronological order and published on the internet. The word ‘blog’ is both a noun

and a verb” (Duffy & Bruns, 2006, p. 3).

Wiki: “a collaborative Webspace where anyone can add content and anyone can

edit content that has already been published” (Richardson, 2006, p. 8).

Constructivism: “a theory of knowledge that offers particular explanations of how

we come to know what we know” (Ng, 2006, p. 99).

Constructivist learning environment:

[contexts] in which knowledge-building tools (affordances) and the means to create and manipulate artifacts of understanding are provided, not one in which concepts are explicitly taught…a place where learners work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools an learning resources in their pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities. (Hannafin & Hill, 2002, p. 77)

Literacy: “the ability to communicate in real-world situations, which involves the

abilities of individuals to read, write, speak, listen, view, and think” (Cooper, 1997, p. 7).

Technology: used in reference to computer-like devices for the purposes of this

study.

Significance of the Study

After an extensive literature search, no empirical studies were found on the use of

blogs or wikis to support student writing in a K-12 setting. Researchers have also

acknowledged the lack of research on these tools. While there has been a barrage of

studies analyzing technology and student writing, this is the first study to investigate the

teacher’s intent for using blogs and/or wikis with students and whether these tools are

used to support or promote a constructivist learning environment.

13

The data from this study will add significant information to the current knowledge

base on technology and writing, as it targets two specific writing genre, blogs and wikis.

Knowing the processes that teachers follow to determine when and how to use these tools

can help K-12 educators, administrators, curriculum integration specialists, instructional

technology coordinators, and researchers gain insight into using blogs and wikis for

student writing. In addition, the results can help teacher educators to better prepare pre-

service teachers on the instructional use of blogs and wikis in the K-12 classroom.

Organization of the Study

The remainder of this study is organized as follows. Chapter II will present a

review of the literature as it pertains to these relevant topics: word processing and student

writing; technology and writing; writing with weblogs; wikis; constructivism;

constructivism in education; and finally, constructivism, writing and technology. Chapter

III will describe the research design, data collection, and data analysis. Chapters IV will

present the results of the case studies, and Chapter V will discuss the summary,

conclusions, and recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter will address the relationship between the use of computers and

student writing. First, this literature review will present a thorough investigation of

studies that conducted a comparison between the utilization of paper and pencil and the

utilization of a word processor for student writing. While no single instructional approach

can be applied to all learning contexts (Chapman, 2006), factors found to enhance student

writing will be addressed. Next, an examination of existing studies on the educational

uses of blogs and wikis in a K-12 setting will be presented. The relationship between the

characteristics of blogs and the factors found to enhance student writing will also be

explored. Finally, the relationship between constructivism and constructivist learning

environments and blogs and wikis will be reviewed.

Student Writing

Writing can be considered a very personal form of communication. It involves

taking an idea and giving it life through a combination and sequence of words. For

students, writing is often viewed as a long and rather arduous task (Beck & Fetherston,

2003) in which they are often hindered by the process of conveying the thoughts in their

mind onto a blank sheet of paper (Kahn, 1987). This sense of frustration is compounded

when their returned work is “bleeding from the margins with red-penciled abbreviations”

(Jenkinson, 1988, p. 712).

14

15

As computers and word processing programs began their migration from the

business sector to education, many looked to these tools as possible solutions to these

common problems (Kulik, 2003a). Ease of use (Beck & Fetherston, 2003; Kelly, 1990),

readability both on the computer screen and the finished hardcopy (Kurth, 1987; Owston

& Wideman, 1997), revision capabilities for small and large amounts of text (Beck &

Fetherston, 2003; Bradley, 1982; Moeller, 2002) elimination of the need to recopy

(Kantrov, 1991), as well as the onboard editing tools included in most word processing

software (Daiute, 1983; Jones, 1994), made computers and composition appear to be a

perfect match.

Philosophically and practically, word processing fits with current educational thought and pedagogy. There is probably no other single technological application that seems to be as well designed for the educational purposes to which it is put. Simply, there is no other alternative that will allow students and teachers to operate in composing, editing, revising, and publishing with so little compromise. (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000, p. 773)

Several studies, beginning in the 1980s, were conducted to address these suppositions.

These studies analyzed a variety of factors including: both quality and quantity of student

writing; student attitudes toward writing; quality and quantity of revisions; in addition to

the writing process itself.

Quality of Student Writing

Quality of student writing was determined by comparing the results of student

writing with paper and pencil against that of students using a computer-based word

processing program. Several studies utilized an overall holistic score as the indication for

the quality of student writing. While this holistic approach is widely accepted by

language arts instructors, Hunter, Jardine, Rilstone, and Weisgerber (1990) suggested a

16

“more atomistic approach” (p. 43), as this may help future researchers identify the effect

various teaching methods have upon student writing.

Owston, Murray, and Wideman (1991) conducted a controlled study to determine

the effect of word processing on the quality of student writing and revisions. Eighth grade

students who had previous experience with the application and its editing features were

selected as the sample group. Drafts and final revisions originally done with paper and

pencil were transcribed and printed. Trained raters consistently scored papers written

with a word processor significantly higher than those that were handwritten in each of

four separate scales: general competence, focus/organization, support, and

grammar/mechanics. Contrary to findings by Cochran-Smith (1991) that more

experienced writers benefit more from the use of a word processor than those with less

experience, Owston et al. contended, “the fact that students at all levels of language arts

achievement showed similar levels of writing quality again when using word processors

has both theoretical and practical significance” (p. 26).

In 1997, Owston and Wideman examined 52 third grade students from a high

access school with a ratio of one computer for every 3 students and 56 third grade

students from a school with a ratio of 1 computer to every 15 students. Over the course of

3 years, students attending the high-access site (HAS) displayed increased motivation and

less distraction when using a word processor than when writing with paper and pencil.

After only 2 years, researchers observed that compositions written by HAS students were

three times as long as those of students attending the low-access site (LAS). In addition to

an increase in the length of writing, HAS students also displayed a significant increase in

the quality of writing.

17

In a quasi-experimental design, 281 ninth graders in a language arts class were the

subjects of a study to determine the effects computer technology had on student writing

proficiency as well as student attitude toward writing (Lyons, 2002). The experimental

group of students had access to laptop computers for all writing exercises the entire

school year; while the control group was only allowed to use paper and pencil. It is

important to note that both groups received the same instruction and were required to

complete the same assignments. While statistical analysis showed a greater increase in

writing proficiency for the experimental group, Lyons cautions this may be due to uncon-

trolled factors. Students in the experimental group had access to grammar and spell check

functions on the laptop, while the control group was limited to dictionaries. In addition,

the experimental group may have received richer, more effective writing instruction.

The studies described thus far in this review are only a few of the hundreds of

studies done over the last 25 years. As a means to synthesize these findings, three key

meta-analyses were performed: Cochran-Smith (1991), a qualitative design; Bangert-

Drowns (1993), a quantitative design; and Goldberg, Russell, and Cook (2003), a mixed

methods design.

In the meta-analysis of 32 studies conducted by Bagert-Drowns (1993), the effects

of word processing on the quality of student writing were evaluated. Twenty-eight of

these studies, which contained quantitative information, were used to compare the quality

of student writing using word processing against those with paper and pencil. Thirteen of

these studies showed students using word processors produced higher quality composi-

tions. Statistically significant results favoring word processing were found in 10 studies,

while only one study revealed significantly negative results. “Given such percentages,

18

one would attribute strong and reliable positive effects to the use of word processing in

writing instruction” (Bangert-Drowns, 1993, p. 77).

Cochran-Smith (1991) suggested potential problems with research results

regarding the impact of word processing on the quality of student writing. She felt

enough measures had not been taken into account for the influence of other interrelated

variables such as teacher instruction and the context of the writing assignment. Despite

this assertion, Cochran-Smith did find an increase in both the frequency of writing as

well as the overall quantity of writing for students of various ages. By far she felt word

processing had the greatest potential effect on student attitudes toward writing.

The most important reason to consider student attitudes toward writing with word processing is its potentially powerful mediating effect on allocation of time spent on writing, willingness to revise and edit, and the quantity of test produced. As I have augured repeatedly, it is the interrelationship of these factors that is the most interesting and probably the most important consideration in research on word processing and writing. (p. 144)

Due to the major changes in computer hardware, networking capabilities and

word processing software, Goldberg, Russell, and Cook (2003) reviewed 26 studies from

1992 to 2002 in their meta-analysis. Although the findings supporting word processing

were significant, they were not as measurably profound as those of Bangert-Drowns

(1993). Yet this analysis revealed the effect of writing with computers on the quality of

student writing was larger for middle and high school students than students in

elementary school.

Student Attitudes

There are countless testimonials in teaching and computing magazines purporting

the perceived benefits of word processing for individual writers as well as groups of

19

students (Hunter, Jardine, Rilstone, & Weisgerber, 1990). A positive student attitude for

writing is seen as one of these benefits. “In addition to broadly positive attitudes toward

writing with word processing, students often report that they believe their writing

improves with word processing” (Cochran-Smith, 1991, p. 143). Along with a perception

of improved writing quality, Snyder (1993) found students believe computers increase

their capacity to write.

Beck and Fetherston (2003) studied the attitudes about writing both with and

without computers for Year Three students in Australia. This mixed methods research

study investigated seven students and their teacher over a 6-month period. Two hand

written compositions and two compositions created using a word processing program

were evaluated using an analytic scoring system. Students in the study equated good

writing with neat work. If their handwriting was clean and neat, then their composition

was considered to be good. Teacher praise for such a final product only served to

reinforce this belief and created a discontent for manual writing assignments.

When using pen and pencil to compose a story, Beck and Fetherston (2003)

observed that students became easily distracted in a short amount of time. This study

revealed a marked difference in student attitude when utilizing a word processor.

Students were able to stay on task for longer periods of time and would often give up

their recess time to work on their stories.

The students' attitudes towards writing and the writing process changed throughout the period of this investigation. At the start, simply mentioning the word writing made the students cringe with distaste. At the end, however, when the students were able to use the word processor to assist them in their story development, they could not get enough. They began to enjoy the writing process due to the ease with which the word processor enabled them to complete the writing tasks. (p. 154)

20

Quality of student writing was also investigated. While Beck and Fetherston

(2003) concluded that writing produced via word processing was of higher quality, it is

important to consider the software program used for this study. In addition to the typical

editing features of other word processing programs, Story Book Weaver Deluxe (1994)

adds extensive graphic capabilities. Students can select from a wide variety of

backgrounds and other graphics to create a picture. Students in this study were familiar

with this program and were not distracted by these multimedia enhancements.

If students were not familiar with this package, there could have been a chance that they would not achieve a great deal of writing, rather be taken by the pictures and sounds that are so appealing. Their familiarity of this package ensured that the students writing development was affected positively by the incorporation of the word processor. (p. 158)

Lyons (2002) administered an attitudinal writing survey to the ninth grade

subjects of her study designed to evaluate positive attitudes, as well as negative attitudes

toward writing. The attitudes of the experimental group were found to be slightly higher

than those of the control group for writing with and writing without a computer. These

results suggest a positive effect of technology use on the attitudes of students toward the

process of writing. Student attitudes toward the use of word processing for composition

can significantly influence such writing factors as time on task, motivation to revise and

edit, and the quantity of generated text (Cochran-Smith, 1991).

Quantity of Student Writing

Hunter et al. (1990) contended the length of student writing is not indicative of

the quality of the work. A longer composition does not necessarily make it better. In a

study of 28 sophomore and junior high school students, Kurth (1987) found no significant

difference in the number of words written by students with or without the use of the

21

computer. The nature and purpose of the writing assignment were more influential on the

length of the composition than the tool that was used.

Similar results were found by Padgett (2000) who examined 16 fifth-grade

students. For 5 days, half of the class used a word processing program to compose their

daily journal entry, while the other half used paper and pencil. Writing methods were

reversed every week over the course of 4 weeks. While Padgett determined an increased

interest in writing when using computers, no significant difference in quantity of words

emerged.

Dybahl, Shaw, and Blahous (1997) found inconsistent quantitative results in their

study of two fifth-grade classrooms. The number of sentences, a measure of fluency, as

well as the number of words was used to define the quantitative variable. In a writing

sample taken in November, the experimental group had a higher total for both the number

of sentences and the number of words. However, the data sample from May revealed no

significant difference in the total number of words. Dybahl et al. questioned using

quantity as a variable to determine the effect computers may have on writing fluency.

As both teachers and students begin to internalize the notion that form (including length) follows function, researchers who continue to attempt to explain quantity through a consideration of method (the computer versus the hand) may be studying a secondary, but not a primary contributor to the writing. (p. 49)

Some studies do report positive outcomes for quantitative results when using

word processing. Jones (1994) and Keetley (1995) both found stories written with a word

processor by early elementary students to be significantly longer than hand-written

stories. Nichols’ (1996) investigation of sixth graders determined their electronic

compositions contained more words as well as more sentences than the control group.

22

While Peterson (1993) found similar results, her comparison of class interaction with the

method of writing provide an interesting consideration (p. 60). High school seniors wrote

on topics assigned by their teacher 1 day a week for 5 weeks. In a class-to-class compari-

son, one of the classes using paper and pencil had a slightly higher average word count

than the experimental group. Peterson attributed this to the writing topic, as each group’s

assignment was unique.

Writing Process

While most studies examined the effect word processing had on student writing as

opposed to their performance with paper and pencil, Jones (1994) approached his research

design from a different angle. He questioned whether the use of a word processor

influenced a student’s pencil and paper writing ability and skills. In a counterbalanced

pretest-posttest study, 20 second grade students received the same treatment but in reverse

order. After 8 weeks, Jones found “an overall improvement in the quality of their writing”

(p. 52) as well as stories of longer length when word processors were used for both the

experimental and control group. After reverting back to paper and pencil, the scores for the

experimental group also increased, suggesting skills acquired while using word processing

for writing were carried over to compositions done with other tools. Jones contended using

computers facilitates the mechanical aspects of the writing process for students giving them

more time to compose and revise their work (Cochran-Smith, Kahn, & Paris, 1990; Kahn,

1987; Simic, 1994).

Baker and Kinser (1998) found a difference in the writing process when students

wrote using computers. The writing process for students that used paper and pencil was

more linear. First an outline was created, followed by various drafts, before a final

23

document was produced. For students using computers, there was no prescribed set of

steps. Students began to revise their work well before the first draft was ever completed.

For them, revision was a recurring process, similar to the findings of Owston, Murphy,

and Wideman (1991).

Cochran-Smith, Kahn, and Paris (1990) made the claim that the benefits of word

processing can be dependent on the instructional context for which it is used. Depending

on these conditions, word processing can be beneficial to students, especially for begin-

ning writers. When students are hampered by poor fine motor skills, letter production

necessary for the writing task can be a chore. Cochran-Smith et al. suggested word

processing eliminates this obstacle and can actually “unmask competence” (p. 238). The

opportunity to focus on composition may reveal abilities otherwise hidden by a focus on

the mechanical production of letters.

While Kahn (1987) found a positive effect for young students when using a word

processor, she also found “a ripple effect” (p. 12) on both the process of writing and the

attitude of students toward writing as an activity. Compositions written on a computer

were better developed with fewer gaps between ideas than most stories written in the

traditional manner. This difference was attributed to a circular revision process where

students would add or delete content as they wrote. Without the physical pain of holding

a pencil to write for extended periods of time, as well as the mental pain of revising and

recopying hand-written work, students indicated a preference to use a word processor for

writing because they found it to be easier and more amusing.

24

Revision

The focus of revision studies vary. Some are centered on the gross number of

revisions, while others measure the type of revisions. Bangert-Drowns (1993) pointed out

that counting the gross number of errors can be misleading. A simple count does not

identify the significance of the revision; a simple correction that retains the meaning or a

more extensive correction that changes the meaning. More importantly, the total number

of revisions may be substantially lower as many revisions occur throughout the writing

process; changes that “disappear on the final paper copy” (Bangert-Drowns, 1993, p. 85).

This may give some credence to the fact that findings on the effect of word processing

regarding the quantity or quality of revisions are inconclusive.

Both the work done by Hawisher (1986) with college freshman and the study

done by Kurth (1987) on tenth and eleventh graders, found no difference in the number or

quality of revisions made by students using a word processor compared to students using

paper and pencil. However, Daiute (1986) found junior high students using computers

made fewer revisions than when they used a pen. She attributed this result to the fact

students revised differently when using these particular writing tools. When using a word

processor, students tended to add text as an extension to what was already on the paper

rather than revising existing text.

When the burdens of recopying were lifted, student writers tended to interact less with what they had written in a draft than they did when they revised with pen and had to recopy. It appears that these students skimmed over their texts enough to catch mechanical errors but not enough to rework the text at any higher level. (p. 153-154)

Findings by Owston, Murphy, and Wideman (1991) and Grejda and Hannafin

(1992) were more positive. Using eighth graders well versed in word processing, Owston

25

et al. determined papers written with a word processor were of higher quality than hand-

written papers. In addition, data revealed these students continuously revised and edited

their work throughout the writing process. The majority of these revisions were done on

the initial draft, making the variance between draft and final copy less noteworthy.

This ability to alter text at will gave students a sense that their writing is in “a

fluid state” (Beck & Fetherston, 2003, p. 152). Students were willing to try new things

knowing nothing was permanent and a few keystrokes could replace the original text.

This ease of revision, contrasted with the laborious task of erasing indelible pencil strokes

or the recopying of work associated with traditional writing methods, earned the label

felicitous tool by Cochran-Smith et al. (1990).

While the ability to eliminate the necessity of recopying successive drafts is

viewed as a major benefit of word processing, “the very same feature may discourage

students from doing substantive revisions because they don’t have the same opportunities

to revise as they recopy” (Kantrov, 1991, p. 64). When students use spelling and

grammar checks as the major and often sole proofreading method, the results can be

anything but desirable (Moeller, 2002). Coined the fairytale syndrome (Boiarsky, 1991),

students allocate a magical power to computers. “My computer said that was right. I

didn’t think so, but I couldn’t believe my computer could be wrong” (Luffman, 2001,

Pros and cons section, ¶ 1). In addition, the sleek clean look of a freshly printed copy can

give the illusion of perfection (Jackowski-Bartol, 2001).

The Teaching of Writing

Dybahl, Shaw, and Blahous (1997) cautioned that the mystical powers of the

computer helped to conceal the key to effective student writing; the teacher. “The most

26

important ingredient in any composition program is a teacher who is knowledgeable

about the composing process” (Kurth, 1987, p. 18). The computer and word processing

program are merely tools to assist students in writing. How these tools are used in the

instruction of writing is ultimately the role of the teacher (Kahn, 1987; Kantrov, 1991).

Teachers who integrate computers into their writing classes really are teaching more than just what they would teach if they did not use computers or if they relied only on fancy software. They are teaching a new way of thinking about and working with writing—a way of thinking of text as fluid and movable, a way of thinking about communication as dynamic and purposeful. (Rodrigues & Rodrigues, 1989, p. 23)

As shown, a considerable number of studies have attempted to analyze writing

instruction and the use of technology in an attempt to identify effective methods of

improving student writing. Due to the complexity of this process, no single instructional

method can be applied to all situations and conditions (Raimes, 1991). However, there is

mounting evidence that specific techniques can indeed enhance student writing

(Chapman, 2006; Ward, 2004).

Writing instruction should be designed on the premise that writing is a social

activity and as such should be entrenched within a social context (Chapman, 2006; Heap,

1989; NCTE Executive Committee, 2004; Young, 1994). Heap (1989) suggested writing

in the classroom is systematically distinct from the free flowing process often associated

with writing. For students, writing is a task; an assigned duty which can result in positive

or negative endorsements from the teacher.

Between teacher and students, and between students as well, there is an enforceable distribution of rights and responsibilities, and rules, regarding what is to be done (e.g., writing assignment), where it is to be done (table, desk), and how it is to be done (as quietly and as well as possible). (p. 150)

27

There are other influential factors affecting student writing other than this

“normative encapsulation of writing in the classroom” as described by Heap (p. 149),

such as interactions with the teacher or other students, even interactions with tools and

resources that may assist with the writing process. Such interactions create a sense of

community and establish conditions for writing as a social endeavor. However, this social

activity should not be thought of as a discrete entity apart from the context in which it is

set.

If we want students to be effective communicators, to be successful engineers and historians, then we cannot separate form from content, writing from knowledge, action from context. We should not teach writing generically, in a vacuum, as if it were a skill unconnected to purpose or context. (Young, 1994, p. 61)

Just as children learn that social contexts often dictate their spoken language, the same

realization must take place in their understanding of written language (NCTE Executive

Committee, 2004). It is incumbent upon the teacher to be mindfully aware of the

cognitive and social aspects of student writing (Heap, 1989; Young, 1994) and consider

them complimentary rather than competing positions (Chapman, 2006).

Young (1994) and Farmer (2003) discussed the importance of student writers as

members of a community who share in conversations, problem solve, and exchange

information. It is within this social context of mutual interest and knowledge that students

learn to communicate effectively as they learn different contexts place different demands

upon them as writers (p. 61).

All of us who make meaning through writing and reading—scholars, teachers, students—do so in community with others who share our interests in the knowing and the knowledge making processes that constitute our fields of inquiry. Writing is collaboration. It cannot be otherwise. (Reither & Vipond, 1989, p. 866)

28

There must be an increase in the opportunity for students to not only share ideas and

collaborate with others, but also an increased opportunity to respond to the ideas of others

(Chapman, 2006, p. 21). In this way, writing becomes a means for students to explore their

personal thoughts and ideas while influencing and being influenced by those of their

audience (Harris, 1992), essentially “creating an open forum for the creation of knowledge”

(Gay, Sturgill, Martin, & Huttenlocher, 1999, Conceptual Context section, ¶ 1).

Students oftentimes find themselves writing for an imaginary audience, one

contrived by the teacher for a specific writing assignment (Bos & Krajcik, 1998; Cohen

& Riel, 1989; Heap, 1989; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). When, in fact, educational theory

and research support authentic activities, those more closely resembling real-word

activities, that are situated in authentic contexts (Danielson, 2000; Hartman et al., 1995).

“By contextualizing the skill in communicative settings, students are more likely to

utilize skills learned in classrooms outside of school” (Cohen & Riel, 1989, p. 156).

Designing writing tasks within a learning environment that are targeted to a specific,

legitimate audience will serve to establish such authenticity.

Cohen and Riel (1989) conducted a study to determine seventh grade students’

ability to direct their writing toward a specified audience. In the design of the study, one

composition was to serve as their midterm evaluation and receive a grade. Students had

one class period to complete an essay on one of four topics: a recent sports game; a major

power or water supply failure; an increase in costs due to inflation; or the military reserve

duty of their father (p. 149). Another assigned work was written to other students who

were part of the InterCultural Learning Network. This composition, completed after the

midterm exam, had the same four topic choices. These pieces were later translated and

29

wired to students from other countries. All compositions were typed and then scored by

two independent raters.

Contrary to the teachers’ assumption that the midterm essay would receive a

higher rating, compositions written for their international peers were scored higher by

more than half a standard deviation. Compositions written for an authentic audience, an

audience of their peers, were richer in detail, better organized, contained fewer

mechanical errors, contained a more thoroughly developed theme, and were written more

neatly. When writing for their teachers, students assumed they shared common

background knowledge and were not as detailed in their descriptions and writing as they

were when writing for their peers.

The default audience for most student work, the classroom teacher, may be inauthentic in that the teacher already knows most of the material being communicated, and may not respond to writing in the same way that an audience interested in the writing’s content would. (Bos & Krajcik, 1998, p. 2)

The motivating factor in this case did not prove to be a significant grade but instead an

authentic audience combined with an authentic task.

A similar study conducted by Krause (1995) compared work written by college

freshman to an email listserv against that work written for an assigned essay. The purpose

of this study was to determine if there was a carryover in the quality of writing. Would

those who wrote well for the online audience, members of the listserv, write equally well

for the offline audience, the instructor? While the online writing proved to be better

constructed for the targeted audience, there was no carryover in quality to the offline

assigned essay. Krause contended the online writing appeared to be more authentic to

30

both the students and raters; but when the audience became that of the default teacher,

“the sense of audience and purpose deteriorated dramatically” (p. 14).

An authentic audience has proven to be a factor in the early primary grades as

well. Wollman-Bonilla (2001) examined the Family Message Journals of four case-study

first graders to determine if these students demonstrated audience awareness in persua-

sive writing tasks. Students used their Family Message Journal to communicate their

wishes to parents, such as asking for a dog, ordering books, or getting help with home-

work. Wollman-Bonilla monitored student journals for an entire school year. She found

students demonstrated audience awareness regardless of their writing ability or cognitive

development. This result was attributed to writing for a real-world, as well as a familiar,

audience.

Several positive outcomes have been found when students are given a specific

audience for which to write. Students have been found to experience: increased

motivation and achievement (Littrell, 2005; Pearson & Wilkinson, 1986; Sommers &

Collins, 1984); improvement in writing quality (Cohen & Riel, 1989; Kulik, 2003a;

Spitzer, 1990); deeper content knowledge (Danielson, 2000); increased comfort with and

competence in writing (Harris, 1992; Warschauer, 2004); and adjustment in their writing

in order to better suit the targeted audience (Bos & Krajcik, 1998; Reed, 1996). Despite

these benefits, typical writing assignments for students have no concrete, authentic

audience (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003).

Students usually learn to write in schools by first writing words, then isolated sentences, and only later paragraphs—all outside of a communicative context. They are often asked to write about things and events (like the perennial “How I spent by summer vacation” assignment) with no specified purpose (other than to

31

practice writing) and addressed to no one in particular (other than the teacher as evaluator). (Cohen & Riel, 1989, p. 143)

An authentic audience is “concerned exclusively with the meaning of the speaker’s

message” (Johnston, 1999, p. 60). The fact the sole audience is that of the teacher with an

emphasis on evaluation, does not go unnoticed by the students (Lowe & Williams, 2004).

Electronic Writing

Even though the necessity of an authentic audience appears throughout the

literature, educators find the classroom environment restricts the ability to create writing

applications founded by authentic, rather than concocted, circumstances (Cohen & Riel,

1989). Today a tool once used as an alternate writing instrument, now has the potential to

remove this restriction. The classroom teacher and student peers need no longer be

considered the only available audience for student writing, for all physical limitations

have been removed. Students can now collaborate, construct knowledge, and build

learning communities with students from all around the world (Weiler, 2003).

The process of writing—and teaching writing—is in the midst of a tectonic change. The change is in the new technological tools writers use, and in how these tools affect composition and the relationship between writer and audience. (Yancey, 2004, p. 38)

Computers were once thought to be tools of isolation that would prevent students

from collaborating and communicating with classroom peers and condemn them to a life

of solitude (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000; Spitzer, 1990). However, computers have

been found to be more of a catalyst as they serve to increase collaboration and communi-

cation, especially in the field of writing (Bump, 1990; Dickinson, 1986; Hawkins,

Sheingold, Gearhart, & Berger, 1982; Spitzer, 1990). Taking this a step further, Hermann

(1990) found computers have the potential to make learning more collaborative and

32

student-centered. Now, “the pedagogical task becomes one of devising teaching strategies

that capitalize on this cooperative classroom atmosphere” (Hawisher, 1988, p. 17).

The connection between writing and learning has been well established

(Danielson, 2000; Mayher, Lester, & Pradl, 1983). “Writing stimulates thinking, and in

thinking, one comes to formulate ideas, opinions, and new knowledge” (Zacharias, 1990,

p. 6). It is this connection between writing and the construction of knowledge that is a

fundamental reason for using student journals (Fulwiler, 1987). When journals are used

as a personal writing space, very much like a diary, students can reflect on their inner

thoughts and feelings. However, when journaling is used “to facilitate the learner’s ability

to discover connections, describe processes, express emerging understanding, raise

questions, and find answers” (Danielson, 2000, Writing to Learn section, ¶1), its true

power for learning emerges.

The use of journals is not restricted to English or language arts teachers.

Instructors from across the disciplines use student journals for more than a mere

summary of facts (Applebee, 1977), but also as a means to gain insight into the child’s

understanding and assimilation of the information (Kerka, 2002; Killion, 1999; Medway,

1987). “To fully understand any discipline or subject, students must learn to write in the

subject, to understand the conventions used and the unique kinds of vocabulary which

characterize it” (Danielson, 2000, Writing to Learn section, ¶2). While students can use

oral language to express their understanding of the content, writing about the content can

present a richer representation, as students have time to think, reflect, and determine the

best way to express themselves (Littrell, 2005; Medway, 1973)—something they cannot

do when responding to an oral question during a class discussion. This representation of

33

the students’ understanding in their own voice, gives instructors a permanent record of

their constructed content knowledge (King & LaRocco, 2006, p. 3); a voice some

students are not comfortable expressing orally in class (Connor-Greene, 2000).

A dialogue journal may be used as a device to establish a consistent form of

communication between the teacher and student (Kreeft Peyton, 1997; Wang, 1993). This

genre offers students a chance to write on topics of personal interest and can transpire

over an extended period of time, rather than starting a new daily topic (Staton, 1982). In

an effort to promote conversation, grammar and convention errors are not brought to

attention (D'Arcy, 1987; Kreeft Peyton, 1997). Instead, the teacher models correct usage

in her response (Kreeft Peyton, 1997).

While McIntyre and Tlusty (1995) asserted the cyclical process of writing,

reading, and response “creates a dynamic discourse that produces shared, mutually

constructed knowledge” (p. 2), there are some limitations. First, there is the cumbersome

exercise of physically collecting and returning the journals (King & LaRocco, 2006;

Longhurst & Sandage, 2004). While the journals are in the possession of the instructor,

the students are unable to create a new reflection or continue an existing discussion (King

& LaRocco, 2006; Phipps, 2005; Wickstrom, 2003). By the time the journals are returned

to the students, teacher responses may lose their potential impact as the student can lose

interest in the entry topic (Wickstrom, 2003). “Thus one of the most promising tools for

fostering reflectivity is undermined buy logistical and social realities” (McIntyre &

Tlusty, 1995, p. 3).

Technology has brought journaling from a paper-pencil activity to an electronic

experience, e-journaling. Discouraged by the paper nightmare, Longhurst and Sandage

34

(2004) decided to take a step into the 21st century. Looking for a solution that required no

new learning on the part of the student or instructor, Longhurst and Sandage used an

existing and familiar tool as the format for student journals, email. As a writing device,

email offered “many of the best practices educational researchers recommend for

successful course design: fast feedback; personalized feedback; clear application of

reading assignments; and active learning” (p. 71). However, it lacked one important

component. The teacher remained the sole audience for the students’ writing.

King and LaRocco (2006) conducted a study to determine the viability of using e-

journaling to promote teacher and student reflectivity. A course management software

piece was used as the instrument for the e-journals. Graduate level students were required

to submit at least one journal entry per week. Journal entries remained private and were

subject solely to teacher comments. Course instructors adjusted the subsequent lesson

based upon questions and comments made by the students in their e-journals.

At the conclusion of the semester, the authors found both the students and teachers

benefited from the e-journal exchanges. While early entries demonstrated the students’

inexperience with journal writing, as the semester progressed, students often posted more

than the required entries and posted comments in response to those of the instructors.

Students also reported a more thorough understanding of the course content and were more

readily able to apply this knowledge to circumstances outside the classroom. Instructors

found the immediate and convenient access to these electronic journals enabled them to

gain a deeper insight into their students’ thinking which served to enhance their teaching.

E-journals provided a mechanism for supporting student learning as well as meeting

individual learning needs (King & LaRocco, 2006, Discussion section, ¶ 2).

35

Writing with Weblogs

As indicated thus far, computers have directly impacted student writing, from

eliminating the dread of rewrites and enhancing the revision process, to making

electronic journaling a vehicle for student/teacher communication and providing a viable

context for student introspection. The Internet and the abundance of web-based

applications have taken this influence to a new level.

The very nature of the word as a form of communication is changing. We no longer laugh, we LOL….We do not simply read text, we click on it. No longer are we limited to the confines of the printed page, but our words and ideas travel around the world in seconds. Peer reading is not confined to the same circle, the same room, or even the same continent. Blogs and chat rooms have replaced the water cooler, student commons and meeting room. (Yoder, 2007, p. 141)

One such web-based application is the weblog. Jorn Barger is credited for

conceiving the term Weblog in 1997 (Blood, 2000; Huann, John, & Yuen, 2005). At that

time, Weblogs were strictly link-driven sites and required the ability to code HTML

(Blood, 2000; Downes, 2004; Richardson, 2006). It was Dave Winer who gave the

Weblog its true power when he created the ability to "edit this page" (Blood, 2000, p. 8).

The shift from one-to-many had begun.

We could all write, not just read, in ways as never before possible. For the first time in history, at least in the developed world, anyone with a computer and Internet connection could own a press. Just about anyone could make the news. (Gillmor, 2005, p. 24)

The word Weblog is a combination of the words Web and log, leading many to

associate the genre of Weblogs to online journals (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004). However,

Downes (2004) and Sevelj (2006) pointed out that a blog is defined by its format not its

substance. It is the characteristics of a blog that perhaps put it closest to realizing what

36

Gillmore (2005) described as, "the original, read/write promise of the Web" (p. 28), the

creation of content.

The characteristic that ultimately differentiates a blog from a Web page is the way

information is displayed on a blog. Bloggers create posts, or entries, which are chunked

bits of content arranged in reverse chronological order with the most current at the top.

This helps the reader to find new additions quickly as blogs can be updated frequently.

Bloggers insert hyperlinks to other blogs or online sites as a reference to bits of content

within their post. This in essence extends the audience, as it stretches the conversation

outward and helps to provide support for the author's thoughts and opinions (Drexler,

Dawson, & Ferdig, 2007).

Traditionally, students view their writing as a private exchange between the teacher,

who serves as their evaluator, and themselves (Palmeri & Daum, 2001). The ease of publi-

cation associated with blogs adds a needed improvement to the basic audience of teacher

and student, access by the public (Lowe & Williams, 2004). This public arena provides a

conducive environment for the construction of knowledge. “Knowledge construction is

discursive, relational and conversational in nature. Therefore, as students appropriate and

transform knowledge, they must have authentic opportunities for publication of knowl-

edge” (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004, p. 14). While students may not be enthused at the process

of writing, they are often motivated by the anticipation of being published (Alber, 1999).

For many blogvangelists, authentic audience is high on the list of reasons they

choose to use blogs with their students. It is the ease and simplicity of publishing with

blogs that provides students access to the highly desired, immediate, and authentic,

audience characteristic of sound pedagogical practice (Bos & Krajcik, 1998; Reed, 1996;

37

Spitzer, 1990).“Web publication gives students a real audience to write to and, when

optimized, a collaborative environment where they can give and receive feedback,

mirroring the way professional writers use a workshop environment to hone their craft”

(Kennedy, 2003, p. 11).

While class peers and teachers may serve as a familiar audience, publication on

the Web invites a totally unfamiliar audience; one unrestricted by location or time zone

(Bos & Krajcik, 1998; Brooks-Young, 2005; Cohen & Riel, 1989; Ferdig & Trammell,

2004; Lowe & Williams, 2004). It is often awareness of this unfamiliar audience that

motivates students to be more precise in their writing (Cohen & Riel, 1989; Reed, 1996),

and helps to establish a sense of ownership (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004; Godwin-Jones,

2003; Lowe & Williams, 2004).

Two unique characteristics of blogs serve to facilitate knowledge construction:

public commenting and archived posts (Huann, John, & Yuen, 2005). Utecht (2007)

emphasized blogs are about the conversation, not the writing (p. 31), and it is the ability

to receive comments about this conversation that deepens the student’s understanding and

knowledge construction. Lankshear and Knobel (2003) suggested feedback or comments

from others can challenge the student to “regularly update and evaluate his or her point of

view on a topic or issue… to produce persuasive arguments, crisp analyses and so on” (p.

18). Comments can not only affect the author, they can affect the reader as well. As com-

ments are left, they become a part of the conversation and serve as a type of peer-review

(Moeller, 2002; Wang, Fix, & Bock, 2005). These comments may take future visitors on

a different course, as they choose to pursue the thoughts and ideas of those who came

before them.

38

While blogs have been compared to journals (Duffy & Bruns, 2006; Huffaker,

2005b; Oravec, 2002; Weiler, 2003), there is a fundamental difference between these two

forums for writing: journals are linear, and blogs have the ability to hyperlink (Sevelj,

2006). However, it is not the tool itself, but rather how the elements of that tool are

utilized. “Blogs as journals do not engage students any more in the learning process than

a regular journal would. A journal is simple: a student writes, the teacher reads” (Utecht,

2007, p. 32). Without these interactive components of a blog, online journals are merely

an electronic copy of the paper version.

The differences between blogging … and writing as we traditionally think of it are clear: Writing stops; blogging continues. Writing is inside; blogging is outside. Writing is monologue; blogging is conversation. Writing is thesis; blogging is synthesis…none of which minimizes the importance of writing. But writing becomes an ongoing process, one that is not just done for the contrived purposes of the classroom. (Richardson, 2006, p. 31)

Feldman (2001) suggested it is the interactivity of the hyperlink, the ability to click on a

word and be instantaneously hurled to another place and time, that provides the attraction

for many to the World Wide Web. For students, these hyperlinks can help to create and

enhance relationships between the content and the intent of the author (Bolter, 2001;

Feldman, 2001).

These hyperlinks provide an even deeper, functional purpose. They serve as a

roadmap for the conversation that ensues as “bloggers link to other bloggers, creating an

interwoven, and perhaps interdependent, online community of writers and readers”

(Huffaker, 2005b, p. 337). A feature called trackback will inform a blogger when a link

points back to his post. This often deepens the conversation as ideas are exchanged and

refined through reader comments. This roadmap is always available through another type

39

of hyperlink known as a permalink, a portmanteau for permanent link. Even after a blog

post has been archived and is no longer visible on the main page, it can be found via its

permalink; making it easy to search for specific content.

Research on Weblogs in Education

Technorati, a blog search engine, has been tracking blogs since November of

2002. According to Sifry (2006), the number of blogs doubled every 3 months between

2003 and 2006, 100 times larger than when Technorati first began counting. On July 31,

2006, the official number reached 50,000,000. Currently, there is no way to calculate

exactly how many of these are educational blogs; however, Downes (2004) indicates this

number would be “equally impressive” (p. 16). This trend appears to have carried over

into the research of weblogs. According to Lamshed, Berry, and Armstrong (2002), there

are a wealth of studies on blogs and the nature of blogging. While there is adequate

research on the use of blogs in higher education, little empirical research has been done to

study the use of blogs in K-12 education (Fiedler, 2004; Wang, Fix, & Bock, 2005;

Williams & Jacobs, 2004). The majority of documentation available on the subject of

blogs in education at this level is anecdotal.

Empirical Research

In a mixed methods study using 10 eighth-grade female subjects, Littrell (2005)

compared similar activities using two different journaling tools, blogs and traditional

paper/pencil. Littrell focused on three aspects: the frequency and length of journal entries

in addition to determining which method was preferred. Voluntary subjects were

separated into two groups. Each group received the same book to read, but used a

40

different journaling tool. After 2 weeks, the groups switched methods and continued

writing about the assigned novel. This entire process was repeated using a second book.

Data revealed a 50% increase in the number of blog posts as compared to the

number of entries in the paper/pencil journals. Blog entries were on average 30% longer

than entries using the traditional method. All the participants expressed a preference for

writing on the blog. Reasons for this preference included: ease of use; having time to

formulate a thorough response; being able to clarify a position or idea; publishing for an

audience; being able to express their thoughts freely without criticism; and the ability to

personalize their space. Littrell concluded that blogs “served as an impetus for writing,

giving participants a chance to develop their thoughts and ideas about the literature being

read, which in turn segued into their continued writing” (Littrell, 2005, p. 44).

Anecdotal Accounts

Ted Nellen (2000) found the Internet to be ideal for the very diverse population of

students in his Cyber English class. “I use the Internet in my classroom because it solves

so many problems, bridges so many gulfs, inspires so many fertile minds, provides so

much information, introduces such a large audience” (p. 220). All student assignments

were completed on the Internet and later published to a personalized Web page. This site

served as the student’s Webfolio. For Nellen and his students, the Internet offered many

advantages. Rather than waiting until a composition was finished for any feedback,

Nellen, as well as peers and mentors, was able to monitor student progress throughout the

writing process. This helped to reinforce good writing practices and avoided the

discovery of major problems after the writing process had been completed. Hypertext

was also seen as an advantage for the readers of these compositions, as it gave immediate

41

access to any resources or information used by the author, creating a much richer

experience.

Dissatisfied with the participation levels in their online discussion forums,

Williams and Jacobs (2004) conducted a study to determine the feasibility of using blogs

in an MBA course. While participation was voluntary, students did receive credit for

doing so. Fifty percent of the 102 students elected to participate in the blog. Of the 50%

who chose to abstain, two major reasons emerged for this choice: the participation points

were not worth the effort, and there was a sense the student had nothing worth

contributing. It is interesting to note that some students made a differentiation between

participation and contribution; reading the blog but not posting a response was viewed as

participation. Overall, a strong majority of students felt the MBA blog facilitated their

understanding of the content and increased the level of meaningful intellectual exchange.

Both the qualitative and quantitative findings of this study supported the use of blogs as

an effective tool for teaching and learning.

Although anecdotal, Shelbie Witte (2007) described the power of blogs on her

students. In an effort to recreate a project she learned about while attending a conference,

Witte set up a blog as a tool to promote literacy for her eighth grade students. The

Talkback Project proved to be highly successful as pre-service teachers from a nearby

university collaborated with the students via the blog. The interest extended to Iraq as a

parent requested permission to participate. When a student inadvertently mentioned the

name of the town in one of his posts, the administration shut down the project. Rather

than kill the entire venture, communication continued through the exchange of paper

journals.

42

Students let the administration know about their frustration with this change. One

student wrote, “It’s like we’ve gone back to using leeches instead of nuclear medicine”

(Witte, 2007, p. 94). Another said, “By taking away our access to the Talkback Project

blog, you have taken away my voice” (Witte, 2007, p. 95). The soldier in Iraq felt the

questionable content should have been removed rather than shutting down the whole

project. The passionate pleas from the students resulted in an alternative location for the

blog on an internal server, enabling a powerful conversation to continue.

In Blogs as a Tool for Teaching, Steven Krause (2005) described his “outright

failures” (p. B33) with this new writing genre. To create a structure for collaboration,

Krause divided his graduate students into groups and assigned each to a blog. Wanting

his students to experience open and free writing, assignments centered on general topics

covered in the course. No specific directions or guidelines for the posts were given. Much

to the dismay of Krause, the energetic and engaging interaction he expected did not take

place: postings were inconsistent; some students rambled for long lengths; while others

merely provided hyperlinks to other websites. When asked what might be the reason for

the lack of interaction, many students proposed the expectations were too vague. Krause

suggested the failure was due to a lack of desire on the part of the students. He

maintained an author writes because he wants to, not because he has to.

Will Richardson (2003) writes of a completely different experience; one that has

become the inspiration for many other educators (e.g., Borja, 2005; Kennedy, 2003).

Richardson used a class blog as an online discussion tool with his high school Modern

American Literature class. His goal was to extend the in-class discussions that took place.

Students were given a specific number of required posts and were required to comment

43

on posts by their peers as well. The expectations were clear. To add to the experience,

Richardson did not limit the conversation to the members of the class. Not only were

parents invited to read and share in the discussion of The Secret Life of Bees, so was the

author, Sue Monk Kidd. Even students who were reluctant to share their opinions in

class, found a voice in the blog. With an authentic audience in place, an engaging

discourse ensued.

A study performed by Du & Wagner (2007) was designed to determine whether

“online learning logs could serve as a significant predictor for overall course

performance” (p. 5). For the course of the semester, college seniors were required to post

their reflections on what they had learned and read for the week as well as their thoughts

on information posted by others in the class. Performance variables in this study included

the blogs which served as learning logs, the final exam, all other coursework, and overall

performance in the course, which excluded the blogs. The blogs proved to be a significant

predictor of exam performance at the .02 level of significance, and a predictor of overall

course performance at the .07 level of significance. It is interesting to note that a

relationship between all other course work and the final exam performance did not prove

to be significant. Du & Wagner posited that coursework should not be considered a

routine predictor of performance.

Wikis

Wiki is the shortened form of wiki-wiki, the Hawaiian word for quick (Parker &

Chao, 2007; Richardson, 2006). The term was contrived by Ward Cunningham in 1994 as

a name for his newly designed collaborative Internet tool (Augar, Raitman, & Wanlei,

2004; Evans, 2006; C. Wang & Turner, 2004). For such a small word, a wiki fills an

44

enormous void. The basic premise of a wiki site is "to become a shared repository of

knowledge, with the knowledge base growing over times [sic]" (Goodwin-Jones, 2003,

RSS and Wiki section, ¶ 4). A wiki is basically a Website where groups, rather than

individual users, can easily create and edit pages (Parker & Chao, 2007). This degree of

collaboration is not easily achieved.

Blogs and wikis are both known as social web tools because they facilitate

collaborative creation of content open to the public (Anderson, 2007). Despite this basic

similarity, there are several noticeable differences beginning with the fact they serve

different purposes. If your intent is to invite participation but keep the content unchanged,

a blog would be the best tool. If you are looking for as much collaboration as possible

from as many people as possible, then a wiki is the tool for the job (Mader, 2007).

Feedback is another area of variance. While both forms allow for public input, Mader

points out a blog does so by enabling comments, and a wiki allows the user to add or

make changes directly to the content.

Wikis have yet to find their way to research agenda or be utilized as an

instructional method by educators (Evans, 2006; McDowell, 2004). However, Reinhold

(2006) believes educators are starting to realize the potential of wikis to facilitate

“collaborative finding, shaping and sharing of knowledge, as well as communication, all

of which are essential properties in an education context” (p. 47). Such is the case with

Richard Watson, a professor at the University of Georgia. When Watson couldn’t find a

quality textbook to use with his course in XML, he decided to create his own (Gibson,

2006). This wasn’t a typical textbook, edited, published, and sold. This was written by his

students, published on a wiki, and free to the public. Each student was responsible for

45

researching and writing one chapter and served as the editor for preceding and following

chapters to provide continuity. “Rather than accepting information passively from a

standard textbook, students learned the material more thoroughly and with more

enthusiasm by creating their own” (Evans, 2006, p. 30). Watson was surprised at the

reluctance of other colleagues to use this collaborative textbook. It is interesting to note,

however, that Watson worked with international students to translate this wikitext into

Chinese and Italian.

Again in the context of higher education, Mitchell, Posner, and Baecker (1995),

performed an ethnographic study of eight sixth-grade students in an attempt to determine

the effects of a synchronous collaborative editor, quite similar to a wiki. The students

were divided into two groups and given the task of creating a magazine on prejudice over

a 12-week period. The process of cooperative writing presented more challenges to these

inexperienced writers than using the technology. As students came to understand that

writing as one cohesive unit was different than writing as separate units in parallel, they

began to take advantage of the benefits found in a synchronous writing tool. This became

evident when students took ownership of the piece and would make significant changes

to the text regardless if they were the person who entered the information. The authors

determined that the technology did have a distinct impact on the collaborative writing

process for the students in this study.

Familiar with previous research that examined the use of a computer for creative

writing, Desilets and Paquet (2005) performed a case study to analyze using a wiki for a

web-based, hypertext story. Students in grades 4-6 volunteered to meet after school as part

of an extracurricular activity. Students gathered into groups from two to six members to

46

write a story. These stories were non-linear in nature and very similar to the “Choose your

own adventure” books. As the story progresses in these well-known books, the reader

chooses which event should next occur, creating a different story with each reading. Stories

of this genre in paper form require the reader to leaf through the pages looking for the

number that matches their selection. Using a wiki, the reader simply clicks on his choice

and is immediately taken to the correct page with no interruptions or distractions.

Desilets and Paquet (2005) noted a distinct, collective sense of ownership on the

part of the students as they would not hesitate to work on whatever needed to be done

regardless of their designated task. The asynchronous nature of the wiki enabled the

instructors to collaborate with their students through comments of encouragement as well

as criticism, which received immediate attention from the students at the next session.

The authors felt this writing activity capitalized on the unique structural capabilities of a

wiki for the purposes of collaborative web-based storytelling.

The use of wikis does bring about issues of trust with many educators (Evans,

2006; Ferris & Wilder, 2006; Lamb, 2004). It is difficult to accept credibility when the

content is open to insertions and deletions at the whim of the general public. Wikipedia is

one of the best well-known examples. Vandalism is a continual nuisance, but the collabo-

rative nature of a wiki leads to a strong sense of common purpose and ownership (Lamb,

2004). Evans (2006) makes the point, “while Britannica is a frozen monument to past

scholarship, the Wikipedia is living, growing and rapidly improving” (p. 31). Still, one of

the most common uses for wikis is writing instruction (Lamb, 2004) as it offers several

advantages over that of traditional writing instruction: feedback from an authentic

audience; a space for review of information and continued discussion; as well as serving

47

to promote collaboration and a sense of community (Ferris & Wilder, 2006; Forte &

Bruckman, 2006).

Constructivism

Say the word constructivism, and the mind can become dizzy trying to sort

through an uncanny variety of descriptors: cognitive, cultural, information-processing,

radical, situated, social, sociocultural, even trivial constructivism (Davis & Sumara,

2002; Murphy, 1997; Steffe & Gale, 1995). Constructivism stems from the Latin word

construere, which "means to 'interpret' or 'to analyze,' with emphasis on a person's active

construing of a particular meaning or significance" (Mahoney, 1991, p. 96). Contrary to

popular belief, constructivism is not a theory of pedagogy (Fosnot, 2005b). Rather, it a

theory of learning; more specifically, a theory of how an individual learns; an

epistemology (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Davis & Sumara, 2002).

Historically, many philosophers and theorists have been connected to this wide

variety of constructivist leaning theories. Perhaps one of the earliest, Immanuel Kant

(1724-1804) declared while knowledge begins with experience, it is not always a direct

consequence of an occurrence. He contended that an individual must have a priori

knowledge, knowledge independent from the event, in order to construe new associations

among events or experiences (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). To Kant, "a tabula rasa psychol-

ogy was self-contradictory, for unless certain rational categories are posited a prior,

neither 'experience' nor 'mental association' is even possible" (Olssen, 1996, p. 277).

However, it is Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) who receives credit for first

articulating ideas that later led to constructivism (Mahoney, 1991; Regina Public Schools

& Saskatchewan Learning, 2004; Warrick, 2004). Vico's "battle cry" was "the truth is the

48

same as made" (von Glasersfeld, 1984, p. 27), for man could only know what he has

constructed for himself (Parkinson, 2004; Simon, 1999). Thus there could be no reality

outside what the mind had experienced.

Jean Piaget (1896-1980) had a significant influence on the theory of

constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1999) and is thought by some to be the original

constructivist (Oxford, 1997; Warrick, 2004). It was from Kant's work that Piaget derived

a basis for his epistemological beliefs (Prawat, 1996; Warrick, 2004). Like Kant, Piaget

believed humans actively construct their knowledge through experience. However, Piaget

posited distinct, internal processes that equip individuals with not only the ability to learn

but the motivation to do so: assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration (Akyalcin,

1997; Simon, 1999). Assimilation takes place as an individual associates new

occurrences with previous knowledge and concepts. Existing cognitive structures must be

altered in order to accommodate this new information. Equilibration is reached once a

cognitive balance has been reestablished. It is this constant, reoccurring struggle to

accommodate the new with the old that Piaget felt was critical to the learning process.

While the term "constructivist" never appeared in any of Piaget's work, he still considered

himself to be one (Davis & Sumara, 2002; Warrick, 2004).

Piaget later influenced another theorist, Ernst von Glasersfeld (1917- ). This is

evident in von Glasersfeld's focus on how an individual comes to know, along with his

limited acknowledgement of the social processes involved in the construction of knowl-

edge (Phillips, 1995). Further inspiration from Piaget is manifested in von Glasersfeld's

epistemological beliefs, where "learning is characterized as a process of self-organization

in which the subject reorganizes his or her activity in order to eliminate perturbations"

49

(Cobb, 2005). It is the radical constructivist's view, as espoused by von Glasersfeld, that

there is no reality outside the mind; no reality outside an individual's experience (Oxford,

1997; Warrick, 2004). We alone create the reality within our own minds.

Unlike Piaget, Vygotsky (1896-1934) believed learning was dynamic and should

not be associated with developmental periods. More emphasis was placed on the social

context of learning (Knight, 2003). Vygotsky viewed language as the key to both the

development of human thought and culture alike (Alpay, 2003; Liu & Matthews, 2005;

Simon, 1999; Tudge & Winterhoff, 1994), for it is language that facilitates both

individual thought and social interaction. Vygotsky believed more could be learned by

studying students in social situations (Alpay, 2003; Warrick, 2004). He contended "what

students could do with the assistance of others was more indicative of their intellectual

development than what they can do on their own" (Simon, 1999, p. 18).

It is this gap between what a student can do independently and what he is capable

of with assistance that Vygotsky has labeled the zone of proximal development: "The

distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem

solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving

under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p.

86). It is important to note that this zone is not a well-defined space and is a direct result

from the course of social interaction (Tudge & Winterhoff, 1994).

Constructivism in Education

In the early part of the 20th century, a 'change in behavior' was thought to define learning. Thus, teaching was characterized as clear communication with appropriate learner practice, reinforcement, and motivation. Disciplines were broken down into skills and concepts, sequenced from what was considered simple to complex tasks, and assessments were designed to measure changes in

50

behavior. We thought of the mind as a muscle in need of exercise and affected by practice. (Fosnot, 2005a, p. 276)

Fosnot (2005a) has summarized a quite familiar teaching model, which, for many, con-

tinues to dominate their classrooms. To develop a richer understanding of constructivism,

it should be compared to another popular learning theory, objectivism, sometimes known

as behaviorism (Murphy, 1997).

Objectivists believe knowledge of a true and reliable world exists outside the

knower (Jonassen, 1991).The student's mind is seen as a blank slate. For those who hold

this theory of learning, the teacher is in complete control as she actively transmits her

interpretation of the world to the submissive student through direct instruction (V.

Richardson, 2003).

From the constructivist perspective, this in essence entails abandoning the mechanistic "channel of transmission" as a metaphor of linguistic communication, in which, located at one end there is a transmitter (the source of knowledge) and, at the other, a receiver (the student). (Larochelle & Bednarz, 1998, p. 8)

This bestowal of information is usually done through scripted lessons carefully outlined

in written performance objectives (Scheepers, 2000). Student knowledge is measured in

the amount of truths a student acquires (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). Failure to recall a

given truth of a prescribed learning objective will result in repetition of the content until

it is mastered.

According to Applefield, Huber and Moallem (2000), the epistemology of

knowledge and the theory of learning have experienced a paradigm shift as constructivist

perspectives on learning have become widely adopted over the past 20 years (p. 36).

Windschilt (2002) has suggested the "practice" of constructivism is not a "simple

application of instructional strategies in which the teacher is the principle actor and the

51

students are objects upon whom action is taken" (p. 132). Educators who choose to

follow this practice face conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political, dilemmas.

First and foremost, a teacher must have a thorough, conceptual understanding of

constructivism in order to coordinate constructivist objectives for learning with appropri-

ate instruction and assessment. This is a key cultural dilemma. A lack of understanding

can cause confusion between an activity and an idea. "Educators sometimes revert to

catch phrases—such as 'hands-on learning,' 'active engagement of the learner,' and 'depth

over breadth'—without explaining how these concepts can be applied in the classroom

and without attributing them to constructivism" (Hackmann, 2004, p. 698). Windschilt

(2002) asserts this transformation requires educators to both think and act as a

constructivist.

Only when additional educators and educational researchers have sought to understand education from practical and historical perspectives will they better recognize why these important ideas, currently referred to as constructivism, often have such immense rhetorical appeal but then quickly disintegrate as they cross the threshold of the classroom door. (Null, 2004, p. 187)

Pedagogically, constructivism is more demanding of teachers than other tradi-

tional theories of learning. Creating learning environments and activities that facilitate

constructivist principles for student learning require teachers to be knowledgeable of

multiple methods for students to explore various concepts. The process of scaffolding

activities in increasing difficulty helps students become more autonomous (Murphy,

1997; Savery & Duffy, 1995). In addition, these new learning activities no longer fit into

the easily created, easily administered, easily graded, multiple-choice tests. More

complicated assessment tools that measure a students' application of knowledge rather

than knowledge acquisition are required.

52

The ability to solve problems, think creatively, be flexible, and work collaboratively

is demanded of today's college graduates (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Windschilt

(2002) determined these abilities can be the outcome of learning in a constructivist environ-

ment. The world of high-stakes testing compounded the issue (Brooks & Brooks, 1999),

and forced some schools to use scripted curricula in hopes of meeting Annual Yearly

Progress (AYP). Armed with the task of preparing citizens for the 21st century, instructors

continue to use texts and other materials that stress basic skills. Bruner (1971) cautioned

about the effect of testing, a significant political dilemma:

A method of instruction should have the objective of leading the child to discover for himself. Telling children and then testing them on what they have been told inevitably has the effect of producing bench-bound learners whose motivation for learning is likely to be extrinsic to the task—pleasing the teacher, getting into college, artificially maintaining self-esteem. (p. 123)

The culture of the constructivist classroom not only changes for the teacher, it

also changes for the student. As one of the constructivist tenets, teachers are expected to

become facilitators of learning rather than simple disseminators of information. For the

students, this means they will have more control of their own learning, a role that some

may find more difficult and may even resist (Perkins, 1992).

Students will also have to learn new ways to perform. They will have to learn to think for themselves, not wait for the teacher to tell them what to think; to proceed with less focus and direction from the teacher, not to wait for explicit teacher directions; to express their own ideas clearly in their own words, not to answer restricted-response questions; to revisit and revise constructions, not to move immediately on to the next concept or idea. (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 7)

Constructivist teachers face a political dilemma, the task of convincing co-

workers, parents and the community, that students can and do benefit from this type of

instruction. The basic skills curriculum is very familiar to many of these stakeholders, for

53

it is often the way they were taught. "In the public eye, the idea of constructivism suffers

the same handicap as previous progressive philosophies because it is often framed as a

questionable alternative to what already exists" (Windschitl, 2002, p. 157).

Constructivism, Writing, and Technology

In contrast to the mimetic approach to education where students are expected to

parrot back information as a means of demonstrating acquired knowledge, constructivists

evaluate students on production; “what they can generate, demonstrate, and exhibit”

(Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 16). If students are to have the opportunities necessary to

generate, demonstrate, and exhibit their writing, teachers must create learning environ-

ments that accommodate and promote such outcomes. One can argue that all of this is

indeed possible in the traditional classroom using traditional teaching methods.

Considering the elements that can enhance student writing, authentic audience,

collaboration, and writing for an authentic purpose, traditional methods of writing

instruction cannot create such an environment.

Enabling learning environments that foster these desired components of student

writing is easily accomplished through the use of technology (Kulik, 2003b; Spitzer,

1990). Blogs and wikis can provide students with the social environment to establish

learning communities and foster communication with authentic audiences outside of their

immediate school surroundings (Duffy & Bruns, 2006; Richardson, 2006). While blogs

and wikis share these powerful characteristics, they also have unique qualities of their

own. Blogs offer students the ability to become producers of content by publishing their

writing (Brooks-Young, 2005; Ferdig & Trammell, 2004; Polly, 2007). Yet the process

doesn’t stop here, as the public has the ability to interact with the author by posting a

54

comment, in effect extending or refining a conversation (Du & Wagner, 2007a;

Richardson, 2006).

Personal publishing allows for public expression in a previously unprecedented manner. Learners reflectively and creatively publishing [sic] form and join networks related to their ideas, themselves and their peers. Learners have an audience which they can express themselves to and empathise [sic] with. (Farmer, 2003, Traditional Teaching and Learning Models section, ¶ 3)

For some, the possibility of such discourse makes blogs one of the most vital web-based

applications (Huffaker, 2004).

This public exchange of dialogue also provides benefits to the individual, as it

affords them an opportunity to reflect on their thinking and possibly amend previous

thoughts and ideas (Brecia & Miller, 2005; Quinn, Duff, Johnston, & Gursansky, 2007;

Richardson, 2006). Blogs offer reticent students time to contemplate and formulate their

responses; something not often possible in a face-to-face situation (Wolsey, 2004). In

addition, blogs serve as an archive of student work, allowing students to monitor their

thoughts over time as well as what others have written (Huann, John, & Yuen, 2005;

Huffaker, 2005a; Wang, Fix, & Bock, 2005); promoting an “internalization of

knowledge” (Huann, John, & Yuen, 2005, p. 3) which empowers students to take

ownership of their learning (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004).

According to McDowell (2004), wikis offer a level of collaboration that is “not

easily achieved in a traditional or digital setting” (p. 8). He compares this web-based

application to an “enhanced electronic whiteboard” (p. 6) which allows the general public

or a selected group to both create and modify content. Despite the commanding presence

of wikis in the business area (Evans, 2006), educators are just beginning to see their

potential to “facilitate collaborative finding, shaping, and sharing of knowledge, as well

55

as communication, all of which are essential properties in an educational context”

(Reinhold, 2006, p. 47). The online nature of wikis removes all barriers of time and

space, increasing the potential for teachers and students to collaborate on an article or

other piece of writing (Parker & Chao, 2007). Wikis further enhance the writing process

by allowing continual input and the ability to provide comments over time; rather than on

one occasion, the final draft (Duffy & Bruns, 2006). When members of such a group can

work together to discuss issues and share their knowledge, “wikis can serve as a

knowledge platform for a community of practice” (Schaffert et al., 2006, p. 8).

Technology can enable powerful learning environments and can facilitate the

essential principles of a constructivist classroom suggested by Vygotsky: learning and

development is a social, collaborative activity; the zone of proximal development (ZPG)

can serve as a guide for curricular and lesson planning; school learning should occur in a

meaningful contexts; and out-of-school experience should relate to the child’s school

experience (Maddux, Johnson, & Willis, 2001, p. 139). Of all the technological tools

available today, blogs and wikis offer significant potential in helping to address these

principles (Wang, Fix, & Bock, 2005).

This call for authenticity in student writing is echoed in the writings of Vygotsky.

In Mind in Society (1978), Vygotsky contended that writing must be purposeful for the

student and situated within an authentic context; and that writing instruction is often

directly opposed to this philosophy.

Teaching should be organized in such a way that reading and writing are necessary for something. If they are used only to write official greetings to the staff or whatever the teacher thinks up (and clearly suggests to them), then the exercise will be purely mechanical. (p. 117)

56

Vygotsky continues, “Writing must be ‘relevant to life’ (p. 118).

Fulwiler (1987) emphasizes the research of many scholars such as Vygotsky

(1962), Moffett (1968, 1982), Britton (1970, 1975), Emig (1971, 1977), Elbow (1973,

1982), Shaughnessy (1977), and Berthoff (1983), in establishing the importance of

language and its role in assigning meaning for humans (p. 1). This connection between

thought and language is founded on a set of dynamic assumptions:

1. When people articulate connections between new information and what they already know, they learn and understand that new information better (Bruner, 1966).

2. When people think and figure things out, they do so in symbol systems commonly called languages, most often verbal, but also mathematical, musical, visual, and so on (Vygotsky, 1962).

3. When people learn things, they use all of the language modes to do so—reading, writing, speaking, and listening; each mode helps people learn in a unique way (Emig, 1977).

4. When people write about new information and ideas—in addition to reading, talking, and listening—they learn and understand them better (Britton, 1975).

5. When people care about what they write and see connections to their own

lives, they both learn and write better (Moffett, 1968). (Fulwiler, 1987, p. 5-6)

When teachers are able to design learning environments capable of implementing these

principles, students are able to experience writing as real writers do; becoming engrossed

in the true essence of writing (Matthews, 1996).

Summary

The vast amount of research analyzing the use of computers for student writing

focused on word processing. Results concerning quality and quantity of writing, revision,

and student attitudes were discussed. While these results varied for quality of writing,

quantity of writing, and revision, increased motivation and positive student attitudes

57

about writing were common. The ease of revision, elimination of both the physical pain

of writing for long periods, and the need to recopy, are credited for this increase in

motivation and positive attitudes.

Many researchers discussed the disconnect between the activity of writing and the

purpose for the writing. This situation was perpetuated as teachers generated nonsensical

purposes for assignments and often served as the only audience for student work. The

literature showed writing for an authentic audience with an authentic purpose influenced

student writers. In addition to increased motivation, students experienced other benefits

from authenticity such as: improved quality in writing; deeper content knowledge; and

increased comfort and competence in writing.

With the onset of the Internet, electronic forms of writing simply served as

electronic versions of traditional writing activities. Electronic journals retained the

advantages of journaling, such as the facilitation of knowledge construction, and removed

the cumbersome aspects of collecting and returning paper varieties. Yet they still lacked

the aspect of an authentic audience in an authentic context. Weblogs, which have often

been compared to electronic journals, can offer these missing components of authenticity.

Blogs, as they are sometimes known, have the additional benefit of serving as an

archive of learning, but perhaps their most powerful characteristic is the potential for

publication. When students publish their blog posts, their work becomes public and is

available to every reader on the World Wide Web. Readers are able to respond to student

writing in the form of comments. These comments provide a means of extending the

conversation, as the student can reflect on his initial thoughts, expand this thinking, or

modify it entirely; all based on responses from an authentic audience. While the research

58

on the use of blogs in higher education is abundant, the vast majority of the writing on K-

12 use is anecdotal. This literature supports the assertion that blogs have the potential to

create authentic learning tasks for authentic audiences.

Available research on the use of wikis in K-12 education is also slim. Like blogs,

wikis offer students opportunities to publish for an authentic audience, but collaboration

is the key advantage to using this tool. By removing the barriers of time and space, wikis

enable group contribution to and modification of the content instantaneously. While

many see this access to content manipulation as an advantage, some are concerned such

access affects the validity and reliability of the content.

Constructivism maintains knowledge is constructed on the part of the learner.

Knowledge cannot be bestowed upon the child by the teacher. Constructivist learning

environments have the potential to provide elements that can enhance student writing;

elements such as authentic audience, collaboration, and writing for an authentic purpose.

Such environments are not easily created using traditional methods of writing instruction.

Technology can facilitate the principles necessary for a constructivist classroom, and

enable powerful learning environments. Of the many technological tools available today,

blogs and wikis offer significant opportunities to establish constructivist learning

environments and enhance student writing. Chapter III will present the methodology for

this study.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to investigate how blogs and/or wikis were used by

K-12 classroom teachers; how these teachers determined when and why to use these

technologies with students; and their perceptions of how these tools affected students.

The association between blogs, wikis, and student writing, and the association between

computers and constructivism were also examined. In order to fully address these

questions appropriately, the qualitative case study approach was selected as the research

method. This chapter will serve to provide a clear description and purpose of the design

and methods used for this study.

The following questions and sub-questions were examined:

1. How are K-12 teachers utilizing blogs and/or wikis in the classroom?a. What is the intent or purpose for using blogs and wikis?b. How and to what extent do these tools support constructivist learning

theory?c. How do teachers prepare their students to use blogs or wikis?

2. How and to what extent are blogs or wikis structured to promote/enrich student writing?

3. How do K-12 teachers perceive these tools have impacted their students?

Qualitative Case Study Design

Qualitative research is a form of inquiry that looks at participants in their natural

setting, with the goal of understanding how these participants have created meaning

through their own experiences (Merriam, 1998). Savenye and Robinson (2004) note

59

60

qualitative research methods have a long history of use in the study of educational

technology. Asking different questions about new technologies may, in fact, offer a

deeper understanding of what is really happening when these new technologies are used

with students (Savenye & Robinson, 2004, p. 1174).

Like Bogden and Biklen (2003), Merriam (1998) believes qualitative research is

concerned with process instead of resulting outcomes. “The interest is in process rather

than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than

confirmation” (p. 19). When contextual conditions are believed to be a significant factor

to the phenomenon of the study, Yin (1994) advocates the use of the case study method,

as this method is most effective in examining contemporary phenomenon when it is not

possible to manipulate behaviors (p. 8). Savenye and Robinson (2004) perceive another

strength of this methodology is its ability to provide insight into how new technologies

are used by students and teachers without distraction or interference. It is these assets that

make case study design so attractive to educational researchers (Merriam, 1998).

When determining a research strategy, Yin (1994) suggests three conditions be

considered: the type of research questions to be asked, the amount of control the

researcher has over the events, and whether the focus is on contemporary or historical

events. Keeping these conditions in mind, the case study has a distinct advantage when

the study involves how and why questions about contemporary events of which the

researcher has little to no control (Yin, 1994, p. 9). In addition, Merriam (1998) suggests

that a case study approach has the unique potential to uncover knowledge not probable

with other methods (p. 33), making it possible to identify and explain specific educational

issues and problems of practice (p. 34).

61

These are the conditions this researcher took into account as she analyzed

research strategies for this study. The emphasis of this study was on the use of blogs

and/or wikis by K-12 teachers in conjunction with student writing, a highly contemporary

event involving rather new technologies. While analyzing how blogs and/or wikis were

used, this researcher also investigated how teachers determined these were the appropri-

ate tools to use. The emphasis on how questions satisfied another of Yin’s (1994) condi-

tions. Finally, this researcher had no control over any behavioral events. By utilizing a

qualitative approach, this study may provide insight into “ ‘what is really happening’

when technology is used” (Savenye & Robinson, 2004, p. 1174). Based on these reasons,

a case study approach was an effective method to answer the questions posed in the

study.

Role as Researcher

As the ultimate responsibility for the acquisition and analysis of data is that of the

researcher (Merriam, 1998), accuracy, depth, and breadth of data is of primary concern

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The question of subjectivity arises as the data interact with the

reality of the researcher, before it becomes part of the report (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003;

Merriam, 1998). This requires that researchers clearly acknowledge their point of view

within the study (Creswell, 2005; Denzin, 1997), for

…no matter how much you try you can not [sic] divorce your research and writing from your past experiences, who you are, what you believe and what you value….The goal is to become more reflective and conscious of how who you are may shape and enrich what you do, not to eliminate it. (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 34) Glesne (1992) warns of an emotional attachment between the researcher and her

topic of study. The researcher must be able to differentiate a topic that will have an

62

intrinsic interest for others, from a topic which has such deep personal issues that the

researcher may be seeking justification for or even vindication from previous experiences

or actions.

As a classroom teacher for 24 years, this researcher anxiously sought ways to

enhance student learning with technology. However, when more sophisticated web-based

applications, such as blogs and wikis, became available, this researcher had already left

the classroom to become the district technology coordinator. In this capacity, she was

responsible for maintenance and advancements in the network, professional development

for teachers and staff, as well as student instruction. While this researcher has come to

accept the fact that not all teachers share her vision or passion for technology use, she

must constantly monitor how her experiences, opinions and/or prejudices may affect

every aspect of this study. “How you pursue your own subjectivity matters less than that

you pursue it” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1991, p. 106).

Participant Selection

While a case study can provide a rich, thick description of the phenomenon being

examined (Merriam, 1998), Guba and Lincoln (1981) caution oversimplification or

exaggeration of this thick description can mislead the reader and facilitate incorrect

conclusions. Guba and Lincoln continue to advise that a case study is merely one piece of

a puzzle and not necessarily a depiction of the whole. Merriam (1998) suggests an

analysis of multiple cases within the same study that are varied in nature can provide a

more convincing interpretation. “The inclusion of multiple cases is, in fact, a common

strategy for enhancing the external validity or generalizability of your findings”

(Merriam, 1998, p. 40).

63

Participants for this study were K-12 educators who were currently using blogs

and/or wikis with their students. In an effort to enhance the external validity of this study,

eight participants, representing various grade levels, were pursued. Keeping in mind that

using blogs and/or wikis is not a common practice among K-12 educators, looking for

random participants would have been very time consuming. Technology coordinators and

other educational technologists at the state and local levels were contacted by phone for a

potential list of participants. These individuals were in the position to know which staff

members were using these tools. This purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2005) was neces-

sary in order to find individuals in a timely manner who were able to provide data for this

study. Suggested participants were contacted through email and informed of the nature

and involvement of the study. Every attempt was made to find teachers from a broad

representation of grade levels. A letter of consent (see Appendix A) was mailed and

signed by each participant.

Data Sources

Yin (1994) and Patton (1990) advise multiple sources of evidence be used to

collect data as this helps to increase the strength of the study. Interviews often serve as

one source of evidence in qualitative studies. Interviews are an essential tool when it is

not possible to observe behaviors, determine a person’s conceptual understandings, or

replicate an event (Merriam, 1998). Patton (1990) believes interviews enable a researcher

to “find out what is in and on someone else's mind” (p. 278). Because the answers to

many of the stated research questions were not achievable through observation,

interviews were one source of evidence for this study.

64

Merriam (1998) cautions that highly structured interview formats may interfere

with the perceptions and beliefs of the participant and actually reveal those predetermined

by the investigator. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest a study based on the opposite

extreme can also be detrimental, as it can make cross-case analysis more difficult. A

semi-structured interview format was utilized in this study. While specific information

was required from all participants, this questioning procedure was flexible and allowed

the researcher to address whatever situation arose during the interview (Merriam, 1998).

To encourage a deep understanding, a one-on-one semi-structured interview format was

used in this study.

The examination and analysis of artifacts served as a second source of evidence.

These artifacts included blogs and/or wikis created by the teacher and/or students which

could be viewed by the public. Access to non-public blogs posted to school servers was

also procured by the researcher. Blogs offer an additional advantage as they serve as an

archive of interactions from the time the blog was created. A deeper analysis was

conducted of how this tool was used over time and if the intent of the instructor remained

consistent or changed.

Member checking or informant feedback served as the third form of analysis.

According to Creswell (2005), “Member checking is a process in which the researcher

asks one or more participants in the study to check the accuracy of the account” (p. 252).

In addition to checking for accuracy, participants have the opportunity to check for

understanding (Creswell, 2005) and clarify their position by revising or adding additional

information (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) indicate member

checking is “the most crucial technique for establishing credibility” (p. 314) in a study, as

65

participant analysis adds to “the transparency of the research” (Fossey, Harvey,

McDermott, & Davidson, 2002, p. 729).

Every participant in this study received a complete copy of the transcript for all

interview sessions. Participants were asked to make any corrections, changes, or

additions to clarify their intent and present a more clear and accurate representation of

their responses.

Collection Procedures

Unless otherwise requested, interviews were conducted using a free Voice Over

Internet Protocol (VOIP) service tool called Skype. Each participant was interviewed a

minimum of two times. The first interview was used to gather some demographic

information and overall use of blogs and/or wikis. This initial interview provided an

opportunity for the participant to become familiar with Skype and the interview process

in general. A second interview was conducted to obtain additional information as well as

clarify any responses from the first interview. All audio exchanges from every interview

were recorded with permission of the participant.

After the interview process was completed, the researcher examined blog and/or

wiki artifacts available online. Detailed notes of observations were made. The instructor

was contacted via email when clarification was needed. While four of the participants

used both blogs and wikis with their students, this study analyzed their primary tool of

choice for the purposes of this investigation.

Data Analysis

Bogden and Biklen (2003) maintain good researchers rely on their theoretical

perspective to guide them as they collect and analyze data. The philosophy of education

66

held by this researcher is based on interpretivism, specifically constructivism. It is this

researcher’s belief that knowledge is constructed by the individual and is not totally

dependent on social situations. As there is no universal truth, there is no search for

"lawlike generalizations" (Willis, Thompson, & Sadera, 1999, p. 6). The goal is to under-

stand how teachers' own reality of the effectiveness of technology impacts their instruc-

tional use of these tools and if this reality has been altered by their experience with them.

Interpretivism places an emphasis on the context of the research (Willis, Thompson,

& Sadera, 1999). One purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers determine

why and how to use technology with their students, an articulation of their intent. This

researcher also hoped to learn what types of activities using blogs and/or wikis were

designed and if these occurred within a constructivist learning environment. It would not

be feasible to examine these questions about the design and integration of technology

outside of the context in which they were positioned. It was the theoretical perspective of

interpretivism that served as a guide for this researcher as she collected and analyzed data.

In contrast to behaviorism, which views students as empty vessels waiting to be

filled with knowledge transmitted by the teacher, constructivism views the acquisition of

knowledge as that which is actively constructed by the student (Murphy, 1997; Vygotsky,

1978). Constructivists contend there is no reality outside the individual. Knowledge is not

merely a transfer of information directly into the memory, but rather the creation of an

interpretation by the student. Knowledge cannot be discovered but is housed within the

mind of each individual, based on the individual’s interpretation of past experiences,

beliefs, and acquired knowledge, (Jonassen, 1991; Kim, 2001). This concept precipitates

the existence of multiple truths and realities (Murphy, 1997).

67

It is important to remember that constructivism is a learning theory and not a pre-

scription for a learning strategy or a teaching methodology (Moore, 2004; V. Richardson,

2003). However, Perkins (1992) notes, "If learning has this constructive character

inherently, it follows that teaching practices need to be supportive of the construction that

must occur" (p. 49). This can be accomplished through the design and implementation of

learning environments. Brooks and Brooks (1999), Ferguson (2001), and Sprague and

Dede (1999) suggest teacher beliefs that can promote such constructivist learning

environments:

Learning is relevant and meaningful to students.

Activities are problem-based with a focus on real-world issues.

Student inquiry is encouraged to promote knowledge construction.

Enable learners to interpret multiple perspectives.

Collaboration is encouraged.

Student autonomy is encouraged and accepted.

While teachers were asked about their use of blogs and/or wikis with students,

the focus was on the factors participants used to determine how and why they choose to

use these tools. The data was analyzed to see whether they enabled and supported a

constructivist learning environment as described above, or if they follow a technocentric

approach as outlined by Salomon (2000).

Salomon (2000) professes just because it can be done, doesn't be that it should be

done. He describes a technological paradox whereby technology has become domesti-

cated. By his definition this means technology is only used when it fits into the current

philosophy of knowledge transmission. Students are allowed to learn from technology,

68

not with technology. Its use as an effective and unique tool to construct, communicate,

and design is suppressed (¶ 6). While technology has the potential to provide rich

learning environments, Salomon contends there is a vast difference in its potential, how it

is actually being used in education, and how educators should be using it. "Education is

far too important to society to be wiggled by a technological tail. Let technology show us

what can be done, and let educational considerations determine what will be done in

actuality" (¶ 29).

Data retrieved from one-on-one interviews and artifacts were analyzed using the

constant comparative method. As the name would indicate, the data were constantly

evaluated and compared (Merriam, 1998). This process provided the groundwork for the

emergence of tentative categories. These tentative categories were reviewed against the

data and, after constant comparison, led to more refined patterns and themes. A cross

case analysis was conducted using individual case results.

Summary

A multiple-case study approach was used to analyze the intent of K-12 teachers to

use blogs and/or wikis with their students, in particular for student writing; how these

teachers determined when and why to use these technologies with students; and their

perceptions of how these tools affected students. The association between the use of

blogs and/or wikis and constructivism was also examined. Data were gleaned from one-

on-one semi-structured interviews, member checking, and review of teacher and/or

student blogs and wikis. Using a constant comparative method, data was continually

compared and analyzed in an effort to refine emergent categories, themes and/or patterns.

CHAPTER IV

DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS

This chapter will provide detailed information about each of the eight participants

used in this study. (See Table 1.) Demographic information for each participant; deter-

mination to use technology; blog and/or wiki project descriptions; intent or purpose for

using blogs and/or wikis; preparing students to use blogs and/or wikis; student impact;

possible concerns about using these tools; and an overview will be presented for each

participant.

Katie

Located in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, this P-8 school had a popula-

tion of around 300 students; 25 of which attended Katie’s first grade class. She describes

her local area as middle class with some government subsidized housing. It is interesting

to note the composition of this class did not have a diverse ability spread. The top-

performing first grade students were placed in the first/second grade split class, a practice

that happens in this school whenever the numbers do not justify two sections of first

grade. For Katie, this meant there were fewer students who were described as “the

keeners” who could “do all the stuff really quickly.” With 16 years of experience, Katie

had won several awards for her work with students and had presented in a K-12 online

technology conference.

69

Table 1

Participant Demographic Information

Grade/ Subject

Years of Experience Class Size

School Population Trainer

Conference Presenter

Classroom Computers

Computer Labs Toola

Years of Tool Use

Katie 1st 16 25 292 no yes 6 1 blog/wiki 4

Mike 3rd ESL 18 20 510 yes yes 9 1 blog/wiki 2

Grant 5th 18 17 620 yes yes 4 1 blog 4

Rita 5th 6 24 722 no no class is in the lab blog 1

Evan JH Social Studies

14 135 daily 700 no yes 1 7 blog 2

David HS Math 15 70 daily 1100 yes yes 1 3 blog/wiki 4

Donna HS Science

28 110 daily 1500 yes no 1 5 blog 1

Jeff HS English

24 87 daily 3300 Yes yes 1 11 wiki/blog 4

aPrimary tool is listed first

136

70

71

Determination to Use Technology

Katie was very selective in her determinations to use technology. She analyzed

the desired outcome in order to determine the instructional tool to be used. For Katie,

technology was not viewed as the driving force but rather a supporting tool.

You have to always be weighing what’s the best way that I can teach this so the kids can understand it. There are times when a paper thing is a better tool, but often times it’s not. Often times, the technology is better.

Katie’s Project Description

Katie saw the possibilities for using a blog with her students when she attended

the local educational technologist’s session at their professional development workshop.

She approached him to see if he thought this might be possible with first graders. He had

been looking for a teacher ready to accept the challenge, and a partnership was formed.

This first grade teacher also used the main blog page as a portal to individual

student blogs. Katie was able to give students individual time at the computer by using

blogging as one of her centers during guided reading. While Katie was conducting small

group reading sessions, students were able to work independently on their blog posts at

the computer center. As students did not receive assistance while writing, Katie inserted

an editor’s note to help readers who did not speak “emergent writer.” She did not correct

their work. She simply provided a translation in parentheses.

The main page of the blog also provided information about what the class had

studied, work they had done, trips they had made, special projects, and other events.

Katie used a number of video and audio tools to display the students’ work and inform

the audience. A slideshow presented drawings while each student told about their work.

72

A video, taken by a student, showed a number-family activity done during math. Twenty-

five students wrote almost every day with only six classroom computers.

Katie also had a class wiki dedicated to primary math. Katie’s wiki was

collaborative and open to other interested schools for participation. Various pages in the

wiki represented general math concepts such as number, patterns, and addition. Schools

that joined the wiki added content to the pages in the form of pictures, slide shows, and

videos. Katie did not use the wiki on a daily basis. Wikis were designed to enable others

to contribute unique content. Katie explained her students understood the difference

between the purpose of these two tools. “They know you can’t just make a blog just to

learn something, but you could make a wiki about that and ask people to contribute. They

definitely understand.”

With 25 students, six networked computers served as one of the centers during

guided reading. At this center, Katie’s students worked independently on their blogs,

often choosing their own topic for their post. Katie worked throughout the first semester

teaching students blogging mechanics, often scheduling multiple sessions in the computer

lab, so her students could reach this level of independence.

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

Prior to using blogs, Katie used a website to inform parents of the day’s activities.

One student spent the final 10 minutes of the day to write about the day’s events. Katie

made it readable for parents by adding editor comments and posted it to the webpage.

When Katie first began using blogs, this same practice continued. The blog had simply

replaced the purpose of the website, only in a different format. She wanted something

more engaging; something that used higher order thinking skills. She wanted a place

73

where her students could write, not just about the day’s events. What was once intended

to be a reflection of what was happening in her classroom, was “turning more and more

into a sharing of our learning rather than just what we did.”

Student Preparation

Katie was asked if she was teaching her students any differently now that she used

blogs with her students. Katie made it clear that the only difference she perceived was the

fact she used technology.

I don’t really see my classroom as that different than other people’s classrooms. I just see that we’re doing things on technology, using technology instead of pencil and paper. We’re still learning how to write and read in the same way.

For Katie, blogs and wikis were a way of supporting her instruction and the students’

learning, not a separate subject or element. The technology was seamless.

Student Impact

Katie found the access and interaction with an authentic audience, people other

than the teacher, classmates, or parents, was a very motivating factor for her students.

They became much more interested in writing knowing that someone else was reading

their work. Her students wanted to know what Katie wrote on the main page of the blog

whenever something new appeared, and they wanted to see the blogs of all the schools

who partnered with them as blogging buddies. Katie attributed this cycle of writing,

reading, and commenting for her students’ recognition of themselves as writers.

“Knowing someone has read your work 121 times, gives a lot more purpose to your

writing than writing in your notebook.”

While Katie could not say that her students were better writers, she was not the

least bit hesitant to associate the blogging process with students’ increased motivation to

74

write. This was substantiated from a different source, as Katie recounted the story of a

student she taught for two consecutive years at different grade levels. These were,

incidentally, the first 2 years she used blogs for student writing. In a conversation with

Katie, a child’s mother said she was convinced her son’s love of writing was a direct

result of the blogging they did in class.

Katie also made use of mentors with her first grade students. She established a

partnership with students taking an early childhood writing class at a neighboring

university. This was a special relationship as both groups of students were learning from

one another. The university students assisted their first grade blogging buddies to

improve their grammar and writing skills, which in turn helped them to learn about

writing instruction for early childhood learners.

Katie presented the university students with the rubric used to assess student

writing skills at the end of the year. As a part of their course assignments, these university

students were required to make comments on their first grade blogging buddy’s blog.

Katie hoped knowledge of specific goals and outcomes would enable the university

students to make knowledgeable and intelligent comments that would serve to reinforce

the learning taking place in the classroom. Perhaps that is exactly what happened, but

reading the post in Figure 1, one might have reason to believe a first grade student

reversed roles and acted as the university student’s mentor.

75

Someone is Watching You

I continue to be amazed at the power of our big blogging buddies at the University of Regina. Each morning, I show the students the comments that were made the night before, putting them up on the Smartboard at the front of the class. There is a common theme to these comments--some positive remarks along with some suggestions for improvement. This morning we

noticed that one of the buddies had not started her sentence with a capital letter, even though remembering to use a capital letter was one of her comments to my student. My children all thought this was quite funny. This afternoon as the students blogged, another student wrote “You for got to make a. Kapidl I no your tring to do a wundrful gob .Tri to kep on going”. (For those of you who do not speak emerging writer, it says “You forgot to make a capital. I know you’re trying to do a wonderful job. Try to keep on going.” This is a perfect parody of the kind of comments that the “big” blogging buddies make. The power of modeling!

Katie had further evidence this was a successful partnership when her students

began monitoring their own writing to produce the results brought up in the comments of

their university blogging buddy.

Today before we blogged I said, OK what are your blogging buddies looking for in your writing? Because instead of saying, “What I am looking for?” it’s much more powerful that they know, oh, there’s blogging buddies looking for this. They quickly said, “Oh, they’re looking for periods. They’re looking for capitals letters. They’re looking to see if we sounded out our words.” They knew. They just listed off.

The interchange of blog comments between Australia, New Zealand, and Katie’s

class often provided rich, relevant learning opportunities. Students in Katie’s class were

able to learn about extraordinary topics such as volcanoes and sharks from students who

thought these were common, every day things. She recalled two incidents with kinder-

garten students from New Zealand. (See Figure 2.) Katie’s students had talked about

Figure 1. Post from Katie’s class blog

76

volcanoes in class so they wrote about them in their blogs. The New Zealand students

wrote back to say they actually had a volcano near their school, and they could see it

spewing ash when it erupted. Katie described her students’ reaction as “over the wall.”

Figure 2. Blog with New Zealand kindergarteners

Katie’s students gained more than knowledge about two distinct things in nature. They

learned about differences in culture and geography from other first grade students who

may look just as they do but live in very different worlds.

Concerns

Giving first grade students access to the Internet can raise all types of concerns

with everyone involved: parents, teachers, and administrators (Boling, 2005b). For Katie,

the fact that the future is impossible to predict made it even more important that students

77

are not only exposed to this digital culture, but are taught how to use it responsibly as

well.

I think that I have no idea what the world is going to be like by the time they graduate. But without a doubt, the world is going to be continually more digital in some way. Perhaps blogs won’t even be around by the time they graduate from high school, but they may have morphed into something else. So I think we have to give them that exposure to a constantly changing environment like the Internet and teach them appropriate use of the tools, appropriate conduct online, starting at a young age. I think that’s really important.

As part of this instructional strategy for using the Internet, students are only

allowed to use their first name. When pictures are posted, no name is visibly associated

with that picture. Katie will, however, give credit to the student who filmed the video or

took the picture. She also uses a blogging tool that allows her to moderate comments, to

approve or disapprove of them before they are publicly posted to the blog. Every student

blog post must also be approved before it is published to the blog. If students write a

comment which may be considered hurtful to another student, Katie will use that as a

teachable moment and discuss why such statements are inappropriate.

While Katie understood the need for such precautions, she believed much of the

concern about child predators finding victims online is not as dangerous as another

practice that parents often applaud.

I don’t know what the law is in the United States, but if you were in a public place here, the newspaper could go and take your picture and get the name and post it at anytime without your permission. So, who are the students more in danger from? Someone who is in the same city, or someone who lives in Timbuktu?

Overview

78

Katie called herself a “very odd duck” for the fact she did not use technology

outside of the classroom applications. “I’m not a techie person.” Katie talked about how

her blog had changed since she started 4 years ago.

The first year we did it, I didn’t put on any pictures or anything. I wrote. They wrote. It wasn’t very interesting to look at all. And then the next year, I finally figured out how to put pictures on. Then you learn new things as they come along.

Katie had several intentions for using blogs with her students, but making and

receiving comments was not one of those intentions. Commenting was another discovery

Katie made after she had started using the blog.

Initially I was just looking to get the kids’ stuff online. I didn’t even realize it (the commenting feature) would be there to tell you the truth. But once I realized it, then I realized what a powerful thing it was.

Katie did not anticipate how much her students would learn from their blogging buddies

by receiving comments. They learned about sharks and volcanoes from the New

Zealanders and a fire safety poem from students in Australia. All of this learning was like

a domino affect, leading to even more questions and continued exchanges of information.

Katie now expects this type of learning to happen simply because her students blog.

While Katie’s blog has transformed over time, she said her expectations have

always been exceeded. “It’s always just gone above; the results have been way beyond

what I expected could happen.” She gave the example of a wiki she created to collect

1,000 signatures. She wanted her students to get a visual representation of what 1,000

looked like. The students put their names on it. The parents put their names on it. Katie

wrote about it on the blog, and 21/2 months later, they had 1,000 signatures.

As an instructor, Katie felt the connections she made were a benefit. “It’s the

connections you make outside your classroom. You’re really inviting the world into your

79

classroom to help you teach these kids; sort of sharing the burden.” She also felt this

connection was important to her students’ learning as well. “For the long term, I think it’s

really important for them to see the potential of how they can learn and how they can

connect to other people.”

By taking advantage of the complete blogging process where students are writing,

an audience is reading and commenting on their work, Katie believed her students felt

they were authentic writers which validated their work. “I think they’re much more

interested in writing and they’re much more aware of themselves as writers because they

have an audience than kids were in my class before we blogged.”

As far as continuing to use blogs and wikis with her students, Katie left no doubt

that this practice would continue. “I can’t imagine doing this [teaching] without it.”

Mike

Mike was an elementary teacher for 18 years. At the time of this study, he was a

third-grade teacher of a class of 20 English language learners, ELL, students. As a

sheltered ELL class, Mike explained his class size was a bit smaller, allowing him more

time to focus on language development. Mike's school had a total student population of

510 with a low income rate of 40%. Located in the suburbs of a large Midwestern city,

Mike described his school as being "on the other side of the tracks. They're the mores and

we're the lesses on this side." This low income rate enabled his school to participate in the

Enhancing Education through Technology, E2T2, Grant. This grant provided his district

with technology hardware, software, and professional development. Mike served as the

lead teacher for the grant. His responsibilities included attending regional and state

trainings in order to provide in-house training for the teachers in his building. Mike also

80

taught a graduate level class about using technology with ELL students for a local

university.

Determination to Use Technology

When determining whether to use technology, Mike always considered his

students.

When I want them to do a project and I kind of look at…is this the best way of doing it? Or can they do it more efficiently or just as effectively? How can it be useful? How can we get the kids more involved? Basically, what are the benefits?

He understood how the age of his third-grade students can place limitations on the

activities he designed. The typing ability of students, especially ELL students, can be

somewhat restrictive.

It takes a long time for them to type anything. Not just because they are ELL, just this age. Being ELL does make it a little slower, but mostly because they have to search for the letters all the time.

Mike considered this factor when he designed his blog to be a class blog that did not

include individual student blogs.

Mike’s Project Description

While Mike's school district provided professional development for its teachers,

his first exposure to blogs was at a mini-conference. Mike immediately saw a way to use

his students' excitement about technology and his goal to improve their literacy in a

manner he had not done before.

Because anything on the computer, my kids, they go nuts. They love it. So, getting them on there, and I write the posts. They're reading it. They'll sit there and read that before they read a book. So it's a chance to get them reading something.

The blog also offered an opportunity for his students to post positive reinforce-

81

ment of their peers' accomplishments. This is quite visible in the students’ responses to

Mike's posts. After posting congratulatory remarks to several students for passing their

daily math test, Grace was one of three students to post similar remarks to her peers. She

wrote, "I am passing every day. Daria is passing every day. I want everybody to pass on

Friday."

Another function of the blog was to communicate with his students when he was

not in the classroom. As a trainer and the lead teacher for the E2T2 Grant, Mike often

missed school for professional development. Not only did he catch up on what was going

on in the class, his posts offered an opportunity to share information about his location.

While attending a workshop in Springfield, Mike uploaded some pictures of the state

capitol to his blog. He asked the students questions about some of the photos. A link to

information that would lead to the answer was included. Students would then post their

answers to the questions in their responses. (See Figure 3.)

82

After blogging for about a year, Mike also started using wikis with his students.

As part of their E2T2 grant training, teachers created a technology project that aligned

with the Illinois Teaching Standards as well and the International Society for Technology

in Education, ISTE Standards. This resulted in a collaborative effort with a first-grade

teacher in his building to design a wiki. Mike’s third-grade students served as “language

coaches” for these first-grade writers, helping them to make corrections, leave a

comment, or ask a question about what was written.

“It gives my kids a chance to edit the first-grade posts and actually know what

some of the mistakes are. They get to be the language coaches in this situation.” By

serving as the language coaches for first-grade students, Mike’s ELL class had an oppor-

tunity to learn grammar through error analysis in a meaningful way (Gilbert, Goldstein,

Jacobs, & Winn-Bell Olsen, 1997) and gain confidence in their second language abilities.

Figure 3. Mike’s post on his blog

83

A second wiki enabled Mike’s students to collaborate on various writing activities.

Through this partnership, students worked together to create, edit, and revise content.

Mike saw this collaborative endeavor as a benefit to his students.

In this case, they are collaborating as peers and creating meaning and under-standing together. Since their language proficiencies are closer, they are working in their ZPD, zone of proximal development, from Vygotsky or their l+1 from Stephen Krashen. This is just beyond their proficiency level, so they are learning something new because it's not totally a foreign concept. So, a student may learn something about putting in periods to break up a long sentence, because they already know that a period ends a sentence and a sentence is a thought. If a peer shows them a run-on sentence and shows them how it's two thoughts, learning takes place.

While Mike’s primary tool of choice was the blog, he used a wiki to provide other

opportunities for his students: collaboration, reflection, as well as practice and application

of their second language. As with blogging, time and scheduling were issues for Mike, so

the wikis were not as developed as he wanted them to be. He was not satisfied with the

amount of writing his students did and hoped to see both the amount of writing and the

amount of publishing increase in the future.

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

In addition to improving literacy, Mike saw the blog as an opportunity to praise

his students' efforts.

I do the posts and give them in the morning when they first come in. They've got seven computers set up that can access it. So they can come in. They can read the posts, read comments, and like I said on the introduction to mine: It's just a blog for my class of third graders. I'll celebrate their accomplishments and brag about them. So just a place where I can kind of encourage them, and they're actually reading, responding, leaving comments back. So, it's literacy, and just a place to pump them up a little bit.

Student Preparation

84

Commenting is a unique feature associated with blogs. Posting a comment to a

public blog essentially invites anyone in the world to make a comment. For Mike, this

was considered a significant reason for utilizing student blogs. He used this aspect as a

motivational factor for students to do their best writing. Mike discussed what it meant to

make your writing public with his students.

We talk about this. This is out there. The world can see it, so you want to do your best. Before you put it up there, you’re going to want to do everything to make it as correct as you know how.

Student Impact

Mike found increased student motivation to be primary factor that impacted his

students. He found they were more likely to read the blog than read a book. Students

would also endeavor to read more difficult passages when reading text on the screen. “If

it’s on the computer, they will attempt to read things they wouldn’t read in a book.”

Students were excited to see their name on the blog and read what Mike and their

classmates would say about them. This enthusiasm helped to push students beyond the

language obstacles faced by ELL students; as well as keyboarding challenges faced by

almost all third-grade students.

Mike used his blog as a means to encourage and promote student learning. He

complimented them on their success and provided words of encouragement to help

students realize difficult goals. (See Figure 4.)

85

These types of posts served as a model for his students. They soon began encouraging

their classmates as well. (See Figure 5.)

Figure 4. Post from Mike’s class blog

86

Figure 5. Comments from Mike’s students

Concerns

Mike did not indicate he provided direct instruction about online safety, yet he did

express a concern about exposure to inappropriate comments. While his blog was public,

he alone had the ability to create and post original content. The students provided input

through the commenting feature. Every comment had to be approved by Mike before it

was posted to the blog. This assured no inappropriate messages were ever made public.

Access to technology is a definite concern for Mike. Of his 20 students, only 4

report having a computer at home and 2 of those have Internet access.

It may be the only contact with a computer they have, really. So I want them using it as much as possible, for as many different things as possible. This is one of the new things on the Internet, so even if they’re not posting a lot, just leaving comments, they’re at least experiencing it a little bit. It’s exposure for them.

87

Knowing students had limited access at home, also limited the way Mike used the blog. If

he knew more parents could see it, he would use it as a communication and support tool

as well; informing parents of classroom events and providing instructional support links

to online resources. I could do blog posts daily, but they could only see them in school.

Just finding the time to get them to the computers to read and comment is a challenge.

Future Uses

Mike expressed a desire to do more with wikis with the intent of having his

students create more of the content. He tossed around ideas to do book reviews or have a

class Wikipedia. As he made possible suggestions, the subject of access came up again.

“With my class too, I’m thinking since a lot of them don’t have access at home, even just

to a computer, anything that they can do with a computer now is just going to help them.”

Summary

Increased opportunities to write were vital for Mike’s third-grade ELL students.

Mike used both blogs and wikis to present multiple means for his students to engage with

the English language. Varying student schedules and difficulty in keyboarding were sig-

nificant factors in Mike’s determination to only allow student input through comments.

In a partnership with first-graders, Mike’s students served as language coaches,

supporting first-graders as they edited their work on a class wiki. This collaborative effort

helped Mike’s students apply their skills and gain a sense of empowerment by assisting

younger, less capable students. An additional wiki enabled Mike’s class to collaborate on

various writing projects. Mike felt the peer editing process and occasional group

conferencing with him created additional methods for practice, support, application of

language skills, and continued opportunities to read and write.

88

Though all these learning situations were available, Mike still came back to his

initial intent. “I like it for my original purpose, just to kind of brag about them and

encourage them, and communicate when I’m gone.” It is interesting to note that Mike is

still assessing and reflecting on his intent. “So it's kind of an experiment. I'm still trying

to figure out a good and a better way of using it. I think that the benefits are there; the

literacy.” In addition, Mike was exceedingly aware that consistency is an important

factor; one which he felt had not been achieved. “I didn’t do as much as I should have. I

need to make sure that we are writing more. As Jason Ohler said, ‘When they write, they

think.’ I need to make that happen.”

Grant

Over the course of Grant’s 17-year career as an educator, he has taught every

grade from first through fifth and served as a staff developer. At the time of this

interview, Grant had been in a fifth-grade position for 3 years. A P-5 building located in a

northeast suburb of New York, NY, Grant’s school was one of four in the district and had

a student population of 620 students. Grant described the local area as being very diverse.

“We definitely have two sides of the track in our district; a wealthy side of town and a

not-so-wealthy side.” Thirty to 40% of the student population was designated as ESL,

and 20% receive Free and Reduced Lunch services. Grant is also an award recipient for

his work with blogs and student writing.

Determination to Use Technology

Grant’s determination to use technology stems from his experience as a first-

grade teacher. Theories he formed about student learning applied to his current students.

89

I used to teach first grade and I often go back to that experience, because I learned pretty quickly that if I can get the kids together, talking together, socializing in cooperative groups, whatever you want to call it, things worked out better.

Grant saw blogs as “a natural extension” of the benefit students experience through

collaboration and cooperation. His choice of how and when to use technology, was based

on the potential for such connections. “Ultimately I think the tools that really grab me are

the ones that can make connections between kids and that they can share things among

themselves.”

Grant’s Project Descriptions

The majority of content found on the main page of Grant’s class blog portal was

intentionally stagnant. It provided information about classes that collaborated with his

students, books read in class, directions about posting a comment, online safety, teacher

assignments and links to individual student blogs. Grant, another self-taught educational

blogger, first became aware of blogs and wikis online as he watched how they were being

used by other teachers. In his analysis, he determined much of the material on class blogs

was classroom-based and difficult for an outside party to understand. Then he came

across the work done by Anne Davis (http://anne.teachesme.com), another educational

blogger. Her students were blogging about the news Grant saw that as a viable solution

that addressed his concern.

Grant considered the news a universal topic. He hoped the fact that more people

could identify with the news would spark the general public’s interest and facilitate its

ability to comment on the students’ writing. This led to one of multiple uses for his blog,

student posts about the news. Because Grant found it difficult for all his students to

access one of the four classroom computers, the class usually completed their blog post

90

about the news once a week in the computer lab. Another purpose for the blog was to

display student compositions for formal writing assignments. Most of the time these

pieces were submitted electronically; however, the pioneer journal entries were

handwritten and scanned. (See Figure 6.)

Yet another type of writing found on student blogs was self-initiated student writing

projects. These projects came in various forms, but were more likely to be a script for an

interview or a screenplay and were often completed by a student at home.

Figure 6. A pioneer journal post

91

Grant recently initiated another district-wide blog. Any fifth grade student could

post a review of a book they had read. As students prepared to go to the library, they

could go through the reviews to find a book they someone had recommended. Fifth grade

students also posted responses to prompts about books assigned in class; all with the

intent for students to write about their reading. Unlike the class blog, this was not public

and was password protected.

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

Commenting is a unique feature associated with blogs. Posting a comment to a

public blog essentially invites anyone in the world to make a comment. For Grant, it

appeared to be an essential reason to use blogs with his students: “If I didn’t have other

classrooms commenting to the work they’re doing, then I probably wouldn’t be doing it.”

Grant utilized the analogy of using a fishing worm as bait with his students. He explained

that a post is like a worm. It must be fat and juicy in order to lure the audience into

making a comment.

Collaboration was also an important consideration for Grant. “Whatever helps the

kids correspond with each other; collaborate and communicate with each other; I think

that helps. Blogs for me were just a natural extension of that.” It is interesting to note that

the importance of collaboration extends to his profession as an educator as well. This was

evident as Grant explained the reason he continued to use the same blogging tool, even

though others had more advanced features, was due to the strong user support forum. As

a member of several networks, Grant felt he knew the educators with whom he

collaborated better than the ones in his school.

92

In addition to the potential for commenting and collaboration, blogs offer students

an audience other than the classroom teacher, their peers, or parents, a feature Grant

found valuable. So valuable in fact, Grant often searched for other schools with which to

exchange comments. Grant would have his students comment on the blogs of other

classes in the hope they would reciprocate.

You’ve got to work really hard to set up connections to other classrooms so you can get a tangible audience going. If you don’t, the kids right away are not going to see the point. It’s going to be like a fancy bulletin board.

Student Preparation

Grant’s strategy to prepare his students to use blogs was more about the purpose

than the tool. Since the students were writing a review of a news article or event, Grant

instructed them on how to construct a summary. He also prepared them on another

writing technique, how to construct a meaningful comment. Grant used an actual com-

ment made to a student blog as a model. During this weekly activity, the class discussed

the effectiveness of the comment, and how they might apply the writer’s techniques to

improve both their posts and comments they made to others.

Knowing his student’s writing would be exposed to a larger, more public

audience, Grant talked about the impression this would make on the readers. “We talk

about that it’s going to have a greater audience; to make sure that you proofread your

work.” Grant also had discussion with his class about the differences between more

formal writing, and the informal writing style many of his students used, Internet

Messaging, IM. “Just talking about this is a formal type of writing that people are going

to see and judge you based on how you write.”

93

Student Impact

Grant witnessed some positive changes in student writing. Some students found

blogging to be more engaging, which motivated them to write more. Some students

gained an increased ability to target that writing toward a specific audience. Yet Grant

was not convinced that this was fundamentally true.

It’s still up in the air for me whether it actually improves their writing. Gosh, what I really should be doing this for is to help them get to be better writers really, and I’m not quite sure about that.

Grant was another participant in search of proof that might substantiate the supposition

that blogs had a positive impact on student writing. He was currently working on a

research design with a professor and another classroom teacher.

An authentic audience proved to be motivating for this fifth grade class. Grant

described a reaction from a student when he realized just how far away his work was

being read. “I had this boy Jason, and he just turned around from his computer and said,

‘Man! People from China are reading my stuff!’” Yet Grant does not believe this enthusi-

asm is shared by all of his students. From his observations, Grant felt his stronger writers

“naturally gravitated” toward blogging; while those who ”struggled” were aware of their

weakness and hesitant to make their work visible to the public. Grant hoped his research

would reveal tangible evidence to indicate whether or not blogging for a global audience

actually improved student writing.

Overview

Before using blogs, Grant had attempted to provide an outlet for his student work

by posting their projects on a Webpage. He even went to the trouble of first creating an

94

email link and later a discussion board link to provide a method for commenting on each

student’s work. Feedback was a critical goal.

I was spending a lot of time, these were first graders too, digitizing their work, putting it up there, and manually trying to put in the email links; underneath each work there was an email link under it so anybody that came and visited, parents in particular at that point, could email a link. I would copy and paste those comments underneath the work.

When blogging tools finally appeared that enabled him to moderate any comment made

to a student’s blog, Grant found a tool that matched his goal of providing his students

with an authentic, participatory audience and his need to keep students safe online.

Grant’s blog assignments varied from prompts about instructional topics to

student posts about self-selected news articles. A third option for posting was also

available. Embedded in Grant’s formal writing curriculum were self-initiated writing

projects. Students often chose to complete one of these projects on their own time. In

order to publish their work on the blog, they had to go through the formal writing process

of drafting, revising, and editing.

After their work was published, some students took it to another level. They

turned their piece into a script; practiced the part with their friends during recess or lunch;

and then videotaped their play. Students then took the video and embedded it into the

blog post with their writing project. “I’ve always had writing projects, but it’s never taken

off because we didn’t have this publishing forum…They get so charged about it.” It was

these self-selected writing pieces that gave students the freedom to choose, ensuring that

they read and/or wrote about a topic of interest to them. (See Figure 7.)

95

Grant had many questions about the value of blogging with students. “I still don’t

know whether it’s worth all the work, to be honest. I think the kids enjoy it. But it takes a

Figure 7. Screen shot of a self-initiated writing post

96

lot of instructional time, and it’s not something I’m held accountable for.” Part of his

concern was based on the fact other fifth-grade teachers were not blogging with their

students, so they had to be using their instructional time differently.

I’m doing that, and the other fifth grade classrooms are doing something else. I assume they’re doing something about the mandated curriculum that I’m not doing. I can make the argument that hopefully it is helping them write, think, and read.

Yet he continued to be pleased by his students’ enthusiasm when they received comments

on their work, and their excitement about the connections and collaboration they had with

students from around the world.

Further doubt came after reading the post of Will Richardson, an educational

blogger that Grant followed. Richardson was looking for examples of posts where

students connected to what they were reading by discussing that author’s work in their

own blog. This was not a skill Grant thought his students could demonstrate. “My kids do

not do that. They write in an isolated lab or classroom. They’re putting it out there and if

they’re lucky they get a comment back from one of these kids that we’ve set up.” It is

interesting to note that one of Grant’s students’ posts about the news (See Figure 8.)

caught the attention of junior high class somewhere in cyberspace. (See Figure 9.)

Figure 8. Screen shot of Kitty’s original post on Gordon’s blog

97

To address some of these concerns, Grant was in the process of designing an

action research study to find some quantitative evidence of the effect blogging had on

student writing. Perhaps Grant will find some of the answers he is seeking to support a

practice he felt he could rationalize, “I think in my mind that I can rationalize spending

the time with the kids doing this;” but had difficulty justifying.

Rita

Rita, a fifth-grade teacher in one of several K-5 buildings, taught in a large

suburban district of Atlanta. She described her class of 24 students as very diverse. At the

time of this study, Rita also served as the “blogging” teacher for the other two fifth grades

in her building. A rotation cycle was established, and science and social studies were taught

to Rita’s class by the other instructors. In 6 years of teaching, Rita had completed both her

Masters and Specialist degree in Education. Rita explained a specialist degree was the

equivalent of having all the course work done for a terminal degree in education.

Figure 9. Screen shot from a junior high class blog in reference to Kitty’s post

98

Determination to Use Technology

Rita was a unique participant. As with all the other participants in this study, she

was a regular classroom teacher. However, she also assumed the responsibility for

teaching a class devoted to using blogs for the other two fifth-grade classes. Rita’s

determination to use technology is fundamentally based on her preparations for this class.

I think it’s a matter of planning what kind of lesson I’m going to do and what kind of standards I’m going to incorporate. With blogging, it’s just how far can I go? There are so many things out there I can do.

Rita’s Project Description

Rita was influenced by the work of Anne Davis, an educational blogger, but in a

much more personal way (http://anne.teachesme.com). Davis had actually done some

student blogging projects with Rita’s class the previous year. When Davis went on to

other ventures, Rita decided to continue the work Davis had started. Only this time, all

fifth-grade students would be involved as Rita took on the roll of blogging instructor.

Students from the three classes were placed on a rotating schedule and met with Rita two

times a week. In order for this to work, Rita’s regular classroom students received

instruction in science and social studies from the other fifth-grade teachers. As the

students now came more often, Rita had to expand some of Davis’ previous ideas.

One factor that increased the popularity of blogs was the simplicity of use; knowl-

edge of html coding language was no longer necessary to post information, graphics, and

hyperlinks to the Internet (Blood, 2002). Yet one still has to know procedures for

accomplishing these tasks, even if it was only a matter of knowing which buttons to push.

Specific time scheduled for blogging instruction, enabled Rita to instruct her students on

99

the features of their blogging tool, plus wide variety of techniques and procedures to

enhance their blog.

A single blog served as the portal for the all three fifth-grade classes. Rita kept the

audience informed about the blogging topics in her posts located on the main page of the

blog. Links to individual student blogs, recent comments, archived posts, other classes

who read and commented on their blogs, and current event resources were also available

on the main page.

Rita saw this as an excellent opportunity to reinforce the skills and expand on

some of the topics that were covered in the other subject areas. Blog prompts were

designed for students to apply skills in a more creative manner. For example, students

drew geometric shapes and asked their classmates to find the area. While completing this

task, students also learned how to insert and manipulate a graphic. (See Figure 10.)

Students also practiced the skill of “true blogging.” They first read another

student blog they found interesting. Then they hyperlinked to the original post in their

blog and wrote a reflection of how they connected to what they read.

100

Figure 10. A student post and comments for the area of a geometric figure

101

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

Rita had a specific intent for a specific event; an intent that served a dual purpose.

First, Rita was looking for a way to enhance their writing curriculum and make it more

relevant for the students. “My biggest goal, my biggest hope for this was to reinforce

things we were learning in the regular classroom but in an innovative way.” Second, Rita

wanted students to have the opportunity to review and extend concepts covered in other

content areas.

Writing was the fundamental premise for using blogs with Rita’s fifth-grade

students. According to Rita, traditional writing instruction, based on the five-paragraph

essay, was very “formulated and rigid.” She saw blogs as a way to apply writing skills

learned in the regular classroom in an innovative and creative way. “Overall I wanted it

to be an exciting way for us to review things we were learning in the classroom and go

deeper with.” Rita considered blogs to be a bridge between knowledge students acquired

about the formal writing process and the application of that knowledge to the more

engaging writing form of blogging; a process she was certain would improve student

writing.

Rita viewed blogs as a means to make writing relevant to her students. She

believed blogs had the potential to create opportunities to apply writing to “real-life

situations.” All student posts were written in response to a prompt or topic, yet these

assignments allowed for degrees of student choice and opportunities to relate to personal

experiences. Assignments were often an application of concepts learned in various

content areas; such as their reaction to a movie about the peril of our planet, a plan to

conserve water, the description and properties of a geometric shape, or analogies. Many

102

posts involved the use of student created graphics or the manipulation of existing

graphics; all which required creativity on the part of the student.

Student Preparation

Rita found the relaxed atmosphere of the computer lab often resulted in “lazy

speech,” such as using slang words or inserting emoticons. She felt these might even be

behaviors they had acquired from using computers at home. Rita stressed the fact the

blogging class had the same high expectations of the more formal style of writing used in

language arts. For some students, this was a daily struggle.

Student Impact

Personal blogs enabled these fifth-grade students to invite other members of the

audience to share their perspectives on topics or projects the students wrote about on their

blogs. (See Figure 11 as an example.) This interaction established opportunities to gain a

different perspective from other students, as well as the general audience.

Rita’s word for the impact of authentic audience on her students was ownership.

“There’s a little bit more ownership because they know so many people can read their

work, and the feedback they get.” There was a sense that students wanted to “show off”

their work in the hopes of soliciting more comments. This spurred a higher student

interest, which Rita believed motivated them to demonstrate what they knew.

Rita also felt blogging gave a voice to students who were hesitant to speak up in

the regular classroom, a fact that was not missed by the other fifth grade teachers who

worked with these students. “In particular, students that maybe in the regular classroom

are very reserved or low performing, we have seen some students like that who have

produced some really good work in the blogs.”

103

Overview

In essence, Anne Davis served as a mentor for Rita. Davis would come at

scheduled times during the week to work with Rita’s class. Rita chose to continue this

practice of teaching and learning centered on blogging and how it could support other

educational topics. This created a unique environment, one very different from the

students’ other scheduled classes. Their physical surroundings were different and so was

their task. “They’re not just writing on paper and turning it in, and then they get a grade,

and that’s kind of the end of it. What they put on their blog is there for everyone to see

and make comments.”

Figure 11. A student post in Rita’s class and two comments

104

Rita felt encouraged by the students’ work. Changes in scheduling made it

possible to establish a blogging class. If the same opportunity did not exist next year, Rita

planned to continue using blogs in her classroom, but she would focus their use in

language arts.

Students were not the only ones to benefit from using blogs. Despite the challenge

of being “one step ahead of the kids,” Rita also saw a personal benefit in using blogs with

her students.

I think blogging helps me continue to grow and learn as a teacher. I am in some ways, out of my comfort zone when planning lessons and activities for my blog class. I learn new things about technology and teaching.

This instructor saw value in this tool for all parties involved.

Evan

Evan, a 14-year veteran, was the eighth-grade American History teacher for a

Midwestern junior high which housed 700 students in grades 8 and 9. As a suburb of

Kansas City, MO, this upper-class suburban area was growing at such a rapid rate, it was

difficult to build schools fast enough. Evan’s class size ranged from 23 to 30 students per

class. Evan had also conducted workshops and presented at local and national

conferences. In addition, Evan served as an instructor for a neighboring university

teaching a masters level class, Technology for the Classroom, both face-to-face and

online. Evan also earned the honor of teacher of the year for his state.

Determination to Use Technology

When asked how he determined to use technology for student instruction, Evan’s

response was simple.“It comes down to when I can get access for them on the computer.”

Several stationary and mobile computer labs were available, but they still required

105

advance scheduling and planning due to heavy usage. A one-to-one student to computer

ratio was Evan’s idea of an ideal teaching and learning environment.

As I tell a lot of people, if they would give me one-to-one computers, that would dramatically change my curriculum. If you want to set me loose, give everyone of my students a computer they can take home every day. We’ll be able to get a lot more done. We’ll be more efficient and we’ll get more actual education done. When and if that happens, it will change my curriculum a lot…If I had one-to-one, I wouldn’t use the textbook. I would have enough resources available, at my disposal; just through government sites and different sites. I wouldn’t need the textbook at all. The only thing a textbook is for me right now is an anchor that kids can take home.

Evan anticipated that when the new high school was built, it would be a one-to-one

environment and this initiative would eventually trickle down to the junior high.

Evan’s Project Descriptions

Evan is another teacher who was impressed by the words of David Warlick, an

educational blogger and speaker (http://davidwarlick.com/2cents). After hearing him

speak at a conference, Evan read Warlick’s book and followed his blog. Warlick posted

notes and slides from all his presentations on his blog and journaled about the experience.

Evan was impressed that he could “keep track” of what Warlick was doing without

actually being present. This sparked Evan’s interest and he began to experiment with

blogs and other Web 2.0 tools.

Most of what I do with Web 2.0 has been self-taught; just experimenting and reading. That’s a big thing that Will Richardson talks about too; learning the tools. It’s a lot easier now to walk into a workshop and learn about blogging or podcasting than it was 31/2 years ago. There weren’t very many people teaching it. There weren’t very many people doing it. Most of the blogging and podcasting has been self-taught, experiment, trial and error; things work or don’t work.

For the last 2 years, Evan has maintained a collaborative book blog on an

historical fiction novel for young adults. This included an open invitation for any school

in the world to join the blog and participate in the 4-week project. There are, however, a

106

few factors that make this project quite unique from other similar projects. First, the

author of the novel was an active participant in the blog. She moderated comments from

the participants and asked some very deep and probing questions as well. (See Figure 12.)

Figure 12. Collaborative book blog

She also answered questions about her writing: how she decided on the characters

she used; how much was factual; how much was fictional; and whether or not there would

be a sequel. Second, the novel took place during a time period that was a required topic in

the curriculum; an important consideration for Evan. Third, the setting for these actual

events was the town where the school was located; an opportunity for Evan’s students to

learn more about their local history.

Evan received a grant to purchase 350 books, one for every student in the school

and a few copies that could be checked out by parents and other community members.

107

Three or four questions were posted each week. Students were only required to comment

on two of these posts any time during the project, but they were free to comment more

often and ask questions of the author. Evan also posted other content that was pertinent to

the historical events in the novel: video clips, other websites, and podcasts done by the

author. As a culminating activity, each student was required to produce a final product in

the form of a movie poster, an alternate ending to the story, an alternate book jacket, an

interview with one of the characters, or a poem. These were also posted on the blog and

open to comments from the audience.

As a sustained silent reading activity, students read every day for 20 minutes. In

an effort to create an opportunity for his students to talk about the books they read, Evan

built a different type of book blog for students. Once every 2 weeks, students could

submit a book review and rating of a novel they had read recently. (See Figure 13.) Any

student in the school could then view these reviews and submit one of their own.

What I used to do is put a bulletin board up in the back of my room. But now it’s in a place where you can be in the library and check it out. You could be at home. Other people beyond just my students can look at it if they wanted to see some suggestions for eighth grade reading. I think a lot of times adults try to push books on eighth grade readers. This is a way for eighth graders to tell other eighth graders what they liked or didn’t like about books.

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

Evan had a specific intent for a specific event. Evan needed a physical place where

over 300 students, some in a different time zone or hemisphere, could share in a conversa-

tion and exploration of an historical novel with the author; “a virtual space where you’re

not limited by the confinements of physicalness or time.” His students interacted with other

participating classes from across the nation, as well as with the other 300 fifth-graders in

108

Evan’s school. Technology was the vehicle students used to share ideas, discuss concepts,

or propose differing opinions.

Student Preparation

Internet messaging (IM) was the by-product of a need for economy; to converse

rapidly using text, rather than voice, with the popularity of digital communication

(Shortis, 2007). Teachers soon became anxious about the invasion of IM into more

formal English and language arts classes (Howard & Monfils, 2007; Ross, 2007; Roussin,

2008). This too was a concern for Evan. He spent time to address the need and purpose

for different styles of writing.

I think students today have more of a variety of languages they use. They have their IM language, and they have their verbal language when they’re in the hallway with each other. Then they’re supposed to have formal language that they use when they write their term papers and things. Just kind of talking about

Figure 13. A book review post by a student

109

audience; we’re not going to be talking in IM. We’re actually going to use full word and sentences and things like that. I think that’s a big part of it. Just talking about this is a formal type of writing that people are going to see and judge you on based on how you write.

Audience consideration was an additional factor for Evan. By having a profes-

sional blog, Evan understood the far-reaching capabilities of a blog and the impact a

public audience can have on you as a person and author. He considered it important for

his students to understand this power.

Part of it is having the students understand that what they post is going to be global and try and do the best work possible, because they know that it’s not just going to be Mr. Evan reading it; it’s going to be possibly thousands of people. I think that that increases their desire to write better when they know they’re going to have a larger audience.

Student Impact

“Blogging is writing.” For Evan, there was an obvious connection between a Web

2.0 tool and a task performed by every K-12 student. Even before Evan introduced his

class to blogging, writing was a prominent element in his classroom. Evan indicated there

was however a difference in the way writing was evaluated and discussed.

In some cases, they might have been writing the same amount, but it’s not being read the same. It’s not being discussed the same. I probably didn’t do as much of a quality job of giving feedback. It’s a lot richer type of writing now than it would have been before.

Evan saw a direct correlation between opportunities to write, an outcome of blogging,

and the potential to help students’ ability to communicate.

Evan also utilized a mentor in his book blog project; the actual author of the novel

being discussed through the blog. Evan’s mentor did more than just communicate with

students through comments. She served as Evan’s partner, posting and answering

questions, as well as moderating and facilitating comments. Evan found the author’s

110

participation in the blog to be a valuable asset. “I know some students wrote more in

comments or corresponded with the author more than they would have if they just would

have read the book traditionally.” This type of interaction would not have been possible

without the basic features found in a blog.

Evan concluded his students were motivated to write more accurately due to the

fact their work was now visible to a larger, more global audience. “I think it increases

their desire to write better when they know they’re going to have a larger audience.”

Knowing the novel’s author was as a participating audience member motivated some

students to actually write longer posts than they did for other occasions.

Perhaps the factor which had the greatest impact on the students was the removal

of the barriers of time and space. Students who were more reserved and reluctant to speak

in class were no longer contained by four walls with all eyes on them.

I definitely saw that some students were able to have more of a discussion online than they would in a physical classroom by raising their hand and speaking in front of the class. They had a voice they don’t necessarily have in a traditional classroom… For such students, it seems like a dichotomy, there’s more freedom posting to the blog than there is to raise your hand in class.

They were free to think, write, and edit until they were satisfied with their work before

they had to make it public. As for time, students no longer had to wait for a specific

period of the day to ask a question or share a thought. As soon as a student had a

spontaneous or creative idea, he could write a post or comment on the blog, extending the

discussion beyond the confinement of the classroom walls or school day.

Concerns

Evan reiterated the concern of many classroom teachers, that of Internet safety.

To combat that problem, he used controlled measures. Evan and the author served as the

111

gateway to the blog. They approved comments before they were ever made public. Evan

did not allow students to even use their first name and required them to use a pseudonym.

Everything is filtered when I do the book blog through me. It’s approved or disapproved through me. Nothing is posted without my approval. I eliminate the safety issues. I think the issue with blogs is: how do I make it secure so it’s not open to people who would use it for the wrong things.

Evan conveyed the purpose for the blog is the discussion, and not simply for students to

see their names in print. “It’s not about the name of the person. It’s about the actual

discussion.”

Access to technology is also a concern for Evan. He does not have the desired

level of access at school, and he is also unsure of the students’ accessibility at home.

Evan considered this inequity of access a limitation.

Everything that I do with computers now is basically an enhancement. I can’t really ensure that every student has access outside of my classroom. So I can’t engrain the technology into my curriculum as much as I could if it was 1-to-1.

Overview

Evan gained first-hand experience with blogs by maintaining a professional blog.

Evan saw the opportunity to collaborate with teachers from around the world as a benefit

and considered it his “personal learning community.” Evan extended the importance of

collaboration onto his student blog projects: other schools could participate in the

collaborative book blog and any student in the school could submit a book review for the

library blog.

It is easy to understand why Evan would like to have a one-to-one computer

environment, as blogs were not the only form of technology Evan uses with his students.

He also used podcasting and digital stories to enhance his curriculum and student

112

learning. In addition, Evan served as an example and mentor for other educational

bloggers. All of his conference presentations as well as his classroom materials were

posted on line via his professional blog. Many of these had an accompanying podcast

which provided a narration or explanation.

The cornerstone of Evan’s blog projects was the collaborative book blog. Evan

searched for 3 or 4 years before he found a book that met his criteria of relevance to the

curriculum. The book he ultimately found not only was directly related to the social

studies curriculum, this piece of historical fiction actually took place in the city in which

the school is located. As an additional element of relevance, the book’s author was an

active participant in the book blog. Students interacted directly with the author; asked

questions of the author; responded to questions posed by the author; while the author also

commented on the students’ blog posts. Direct contact with the author helped students to

deepen their understanding of the historical events as well as the author’s intent for

writing the story. This connection also afforded them the opportunity to gain an

understanding of how an expert in the field works. Using a tool such as a blog facilitated

this authentic, real-world activity.

Donna

Donna was a high school science teacher for 28 years. At the time of this study,

she taught anatomy/physiology and advanced placement, AP, biology to 110 students.

Her high school, located in a Midwestern city, had a student population of 1,500 students

and had recently attained a low income rate of 40%. She served as a district technology

trainer, as well as a trainer for the Technology Feast, a week-long technology summer

113

camp for K-12 teachers. Donna had also been awarded Technology Teacher of the Year

by a state educational technology organization.

Determination to Use Technology

Donna's determination factors were centered on the students and making learning

meaningful and relevant to their lives.

I'm looking for ways to make the curriculum relevant; tied to some of the issues the kids are facing. If it helps kids learn the material, or expands their knowledge, or prepares them for the real world, and it's related to technology, you know I look for it. I use it.

In addition, Donna had investigated the literature to support an action research

project she was conducting. She found evidence that supported the impact audience can

have on student writing. “The research that I did indicated that kids tended to write better,

and do a better job when they know more than just the classroom teacher is going to read

their response.”

Donna’s Project Descriptions

Donna's first exposure to blogs and wikis was at a conference where she heard

educational bloggers Will Richardson and David Warlick speak (http://davidwarlick.com/

2cents). She was moved by the ideas she heard at the conference. "I mean I was so, I

mean just awed by that man [Will Richardson (2006)]. The fact that his students studied

the Secret Live of Bees with the author of the book, it brought the world into the

classroom!"

Donna created one class blog. However, she utilized the same blog for two indi-

vidual projects which were modifications of previous assignments that did not involve

this type of technology. The first centered on Taylor's story. Taylor was a high school

114

student who committed suicide while attempting to stop using steroids. Students

researched the effect of steroids on the human body. Facts found to be questionable were

substantiated or refuted by other sources. In addition, they created action plans which

might enable schools, communities and families to help prevent steroid use by high

school students.

The second project involved the Kennewick Man, a 9,000 year old skeleton. A

debate raged between Native American tribes and scientists over the ownership of the

remains. Scientists wanted to study the remains, while the Native Americans wanted

them to be repatriated. Students studied both sides of the argument. They then selected a

position, supported by at least three pieces of data. This topic was even more relevant as

Native American skulls and artifacts had been found in a local attic the previous summer.

Students were able to compare and contrast how these incidents were resolved.

For Donna, helping students to understand the significance of being well informed

on both sides of an issue was a key consideration in her intended design.

I've got kids starting to think like scientists. I don't want them making choices and decisions without being informed. I think that's one life skill…If they take that away from my class, then I think I've been successful as a classroom teacher. They have to be able to study all sides of an issue before taking a position.

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

Donna strategically designed the blog projects to be centered on open-ended,

controversial topics. “I wanted to focus in on issues that were open ended. There was no

right or wrong answer. I didn't want them to think that they could just give me what they

thought I wanted.” Students were expected to study an issue from multiple perspectives

before they determined which side of the issue they supported. Problem-based activities

115

required students to investigate truths and myths about steroid use to generate possible

ideas to assist schools, communities and/or parents to stop the use of steroids by high

school students; a very authentic and relevant project.

Student Impact

Donna, who had conducted the same project with paper and pencil, said there was

a definite improvement in the quality of writing done on the student blogs. She felt

students did a better job of supporting their arguments, because they were reading the

posts from other classmates. In addition, knowledge of arguments and suppositions made

by their peers contributed to richer class discussions.

Donna also found access to an authentic audience influenced their students’

writing. Donna recently conducted some action research on student writing. In her review

of the literature, Donna found an audience other than that of the classroom teacher did

help to improve student writing. She was using blogs in an effort to find evidence that

this held true for her students.

Concerns

At a state technology conference, Donna had heard some statistical information

about Internet predators that concerned her.

I mean, one in five kids are solicited by some kind of a predator when they're online. That concerns me. I mean I don't have a problem with teaching kids how to be safe and all of that stuff. I just don't want that exposure to occur because they've worked on a project for me. I couldn't live with that.

To address this concern, Donna’s class analyzed several articles about Internet

predators and other online safety issues. Together the class formulated a “Safe Blogging

Policy” which was signed by every student. All other participants, except for Mike,

116

instructed their students about online safety issues. Some allowed their students to use

their first name only, while others required students to use a pseudonym.

Donna was also very apprehensive about the freedom her students would have to

post comments in a public environment such as a blog. “It is a risk doing a technology

project with kids the first time because you don’t' know, I mean they're teenagers. God

only knows what they're going to come up with sometimes.” The blogging tool Donna

used does allow comment moderation, but this feature would only work as a class blog;

which is exactly how this project blog was designed.

Setting up individual student blogs using this particular blogging tool was another

concern. Donna had received some spam directly related to a blog post using the word,

steroids, something she did not want her students to experience.

I didn't want to expose kids to other inappropriate emails and responses from people and stuff too. With Blogger, if you post it to Blogger, you run that risk. It's just like what I got with the steroids posting. I wasn't ready for that.

These concerns have prompted Donna to consider using Moodle, a content management

system, in order to be able to control outside access. As a result, her blog is no longer

public, so no screen shots have been included.

Overview

This was the first time Donna used blogs with her students, and she considered it

“an experiment.” This project was related to some action research she was doing for her

Masters degree, looking at the impact of blogs on reading scores. However, bad weather

conditions forced schools to cancel classes several times. This in turn impacted her

teaching schedule as she had to make adjustments for the lost time, coupled with the fact

117

she started mid-year. Because of these factors, Donna felt the implementation of her blog

projects did not go smoothly.

She relied heavily on information acquired from her review of the literature when

deciding to use blogs with her students. “I spent a lot of time researching the connection

between writing and reading and thinking. It [blogging] brings together those three.” Her

research on writing also added credence to using a blog for its ability to provide an

additional audience.

Because in my research, one of the important things that research was showing is that kids tended to do better with their writing if they know more than just the class-room teacher was going to read it. That's one of the reasons I went with a public.

At the time of this study, this blog was public, but no outside comments were made from

the available world-wide public audience. The only other persons reading the students’

work were their peers. Donna indicated this was enough of a change, from teacher as the

sole audience, to have some positive impact on their writing and class discussions.

Jeff

Jeff was a high school English teacher with 23 years of experience. He taught two

classes: a typical sophomore English class and a "skills level" sophomore English class.

Most of the students in the skills level class were instructional learning disabled, LD,

students, many of whom had multiple handicaps. This was a suburban high school with a

student population of 3,200. One of two campuses, Jeff described it as a middle class,

white-collar school. In addition to teaching, Jeff served as a curricular technology

consultant for two periods a day. His duties included assisting other teachers in the use of

technology. Jeff also acted as the cooperative education trainer for his building, presented

118

at state and national technology conferences, and had been recognized by the educational

blogging community.

Determination to Use Technology

Jeff's determination for technology use was based on the curriculum, not the tool.

According to Jeff, technology should not be used for the sake of using technology. It

should be used in support of good curricular objectives. By providing a compelling

reason for the use of technology, Jeff felt this helped the students acquire a deeper

understanding for the purpose of the activity.

Collaborative learning was the key factor in choosing a wiki as the tool for Jeff’s

Literature Circles project.

Going back with collaboration, the idea of negotiating meaning and working; going back and forth to add; to get kids to read and critique and go back and modify; I think this is a huge skill. Can you do that on paper and pencil? Sort of, but this is one case where the ability to make a clean delete and start over, and have multiple people be able to edit the same item; I think this is very valuable.

Jeff’s Project Descriptions

Jeff's first exposure to blogs and wikis came at a technology conference. Unlike

other participants in this study, Jeff did not see an immediate use for these tools.

To be honest with you, I really didn't see the draw. I didn't see what the catch was. I didn't get it. And until I could wrap it around something that my students could use, then I'll make the decision on that. Now that part, I finally figured it out.

Literature Circles were one of the required curricular components of sophomore

English. Students read self-selected books in groups of three or four. Jeff felt his students

merely "jumped through the hoops" and did not gain anything from the process. Rather

than having typical group discussions associated with this method, Jeff created an individ-

ual wiki for each of the novels. Students in each group worked to create a study guide

119

similar to CliffNotes or SparkNotes for their novel. As a class, they analyzed the structure

of this type of study guide to determine what information was critical to someone who was

unfamiliar with a particular novel. The wiki served as a collaborative work space for

students to create and build their resource. At the end of the term, students took a test on

one of the novels they had not read using the collaboratively created wiki as a resource. To

add to the complexity, it had to be created in a different class than the one they attended.

In a different and relatively new venture, Jeff created a blog for each student.

These blogs resembled an electronic journal and acted as a private communication tool

between Jeff and each individual student. This blog served a dual purpose as students

were allowed to post drafts of essay questions from the final test for feedback from Jeff.

In the past, Jeff’s tests had been open book, and the students could take them home

overnight. This time, the students were presented with the test questions the day they

began work on the novel.

I’ve been reading more Marzano and Stiggins. They always talk about working backwards. Start with the test; work backwards as you develop your objectives to go to there. I said, “I’m giving them a night to work on this test. Why don’t I give them the test before we start reading the book?” That way our discussion can have a real bearing.

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

Jeff’s assignments were designed to place the responsibility on the shoulders of

his students to support the learning of their classmates. Their task was to build a resource

to be used by other students in that course, and not necessarily the same class.

If they can create text that their peers can use, not just be entertained by, but to use… “I’m going to be better off; I need to listen to you.” All of a sudden that makes the creator of that text much more accountable and more powerful and more, “I better be sure about what I’m doing because I’m being held to something. I’m not just doing it for the teacher.”

120

A wiki was used as the writing space where students could collaborate to create content.

Students negotiated meaning; read and critiqued each other’s work; and modified content

in order to build an authentic resource to be used by students other than themselves.

Student Preparation

As defined in Chapter I of this study, a wiki is: “a collaborative Webspace where

anyone can add content and anyone can edit content that has already been published”

(Richardson, 2003, p. 8). When multiple students collaborate to create a final product,

this can perpetuate concerns regarding accountability. Jeff understood the difference

between the theory and the reality of using a wiki.

The theory is you create this place for a kid to create his document, and every-thing works out wonderfully, and everyone participates, and everybody edits. The reality is you’re going to have one kid who does nine tenths of the work; two or three kids who don’t do anything; and one kid who does a meager output on a couple of things. Kids are afraid to edit each other. Because you put that on there, who am I to change what you put on there?

To address this reality, Jeff assigned revision roles to each student in a group working on

that wiki. In essence this gave each group member a license to change someone else’s

work without creating a sense of guilt for the editor or embarrassment for the author. This

also helped to establish a sense of group ownership for the wiki and not ownership of

individually contributed content. Jeff felt providing revision roles and other assigned

duties created a vested interest for students and ensured a higher quality of work.

Audience awareness was still a factor even though Jeff’s students did not create a

wiki for the general public. Since these products were intended to be used by students in

other classes for their exam, the audience was in essence their local high school peers.

This explicit purpose for the wiki created a specific, targeted audience, and helped to

121

define their task.

To write for the world wide world is easy because the world is anonymous. If you’re writing to a specific person or a specific group of 10 people, you need to be much more careful. Those people can confront you and can question you and are relying on your wisdom for whatever you’re doing to steer them the right way. If you’re writing to the whole world, you can assume that maybe no one is ever going to look at it.

Jeff’s view about writing for a public audience was much different than that of the other

participants in this study.

Student Impact

Jeff had previously done a paper-pencil version of his wiki project. It was

originally designed as a traditional type of assignment done individually by each student.

When students completed the assignment this time as a group on the wiki, Jeff also found

an improvement in the quality of student writing. This improvement was not a natural

outcome of using a wiki. The prospect of working collaboratively in a group was not

welcomed by all the students. “The idea of having to collaborate with other people on a

common writing space was new ground for them. It was uncomfortable because there

was a lot of negotiating that had to go on.”

To alleviate some of the frustration and confusion, Jeff assigned specific roles for

each member of a wiki. Students now had a direction, something Jeff described as “a

charge.” Students not only felt comfortable editing someone else’s work, they allowed

another group member to modify their contribution. The mindset changed from work

belonging to the person who wrote the words, to work belonging to the group who shared

thoughts and ideas. With clear expectations for individual as well as group performance,

increased student accountability was evident.

122

Overview

Jeff had a firm fundamental belief about using technology for student instruction.

He believed the curriculum should be the determining factor for choosing to use

technology and not the technology itself.

I think sometime tech teachers tend to put the cart before the horse. They say, we’ve got this wiki, or we've got this software, how can we fit this into the curriculum? That's wrong. I’ve got this curriculum, and these are the learning behaviors I need my kids to have.

After determining an essential connection with the curriculum, Jeff felt it was also

necessary to determine if technology could fulfill those objectives better than a more

traditional method. As Jeff stated so succinctly, “If it’s a project that’s better done

individually, then don’t do a stinking wiki!”

Jeff did not directly address authenticity in his instructional design for the use of

wikis. Jeff considered authentic purpose was a prerequisite for authentic audience. “If

you really want to have a true audience, you’ve got to have them writing for a purpose.”

Most of his wiki projects were designed not only to make students dependent on one

another to complete the project, but also dependent upon the collaborative work of others

to complete a related independent task.

Collaboration was not a natural process for Jeff’s students. He talked about the

difficulty with accountability and ownership; not everyone took equal responsibility for

the work and when they did, they often did not like another person manipulating their

work. “I've got my part in and that's it. It’s like an assembly line mentality. I did my job

and whatever happens down the road, it's not my concern.” Jeff used the analogy of

progressing from a quilt to a comforter to help his students grasp the idea of

123

collaboration. “A quilt has got a lot of different things from a lot of different people

writing. It's got to be all uniform, and it's got to flow together.”

Jeff found the easiest way to address the sense of separate identities in a group

project was to take an active part in the development of the wiki. As a participant, he

could provide leading questions and constructive comments to guide students as they

constructed a unified piece of writing.

A lot of times kids were posting and not reading what each other was writing. They're popping something independently and not even reading what each other said… I had to formulate some sort of a structure to encourage them to collaborate more as opposed to just put mine in and the heck with the rest of it.

Using wikis worked well for Jeff. They were collaborative in nature, requiring the

input of several students to complete the task. This proved to be uncomfortable for some

students, yet Jeff considered this association with cooperative learning and technology to

be a “natural step.” Not simply because students were working together, but because they

shared in the experience of creating something unique and more complex than if they had

created individual pieces of writing.

Something as simple as having multiple people being able to edit one document, all of a sudden creates a whole new realm of behaviors; a whole new realm of what you would expect kids to do, and it raises the bar as far as expectations.

David

With 15 years of experience, David was a high school mathematics teacher in a

large urban city located in the Canadian province of Manitoba. His course load included

eleventh-grade advanced placement calculus, tenth-grade consumer mathematics and

twelfth-grade pre-calculus. This 9-12 high school with a population of 1100 students also

served as an English as an Additional Language, EAL, magnet school. For more than one

124

third of his school, English was an additional language and not necessarily the second

language. For some students, it was their third, fourth, fifth or higher language. This large

range of cultural diversity presented a challenge for educators.

When they write their work, often they struggle with the language; never mind, in my case. I teach mathematics, so that’s a language unto itself. They’re really struggling learning two languages at once; which is a bit of a challenge.

David has been a conference presenter at the national and international levels. He

was also one of the originators of a K-12 online technology conference. This annual 2-

week conference is totally free. Unlike typical conferences, no synchronous attendance is

necessary for this annual conference. All of the presentations are free and archived for

future retrieval.

Determination to Use Technology

When asked how he determined when to use technology for instructional purposes,

David explained that his pedagogy is structured around some general principles. At the end

of his four minute response, David was able to articulate everything he had just described

in one sentence.

So how do I make decisions about what technology to use? If it will do anything to facilitate this network of pedagogy, amplify what the students are learning, help create an authentic audience for them, give them the means to make their thinking transparent, and enable them to watch it, do it, teach it, then I’m going to snag it.

David’s Project Descriptions

When the list of sessions for an upcoming local professional development day

came around in the winter of 2004, David thought there had to be more than using tools

in the Microsoft Office Suite and understanding email. So David asked the committee if

he could prepare an additional session on harnessing the power of the Internet. As he was

125

preparing for his session, he happened to stumble upon Alan Levin’s BlogShop. “For me,

the blog was like, Wow! This is a great way and means to aggregate all this content that’s

dispersed widely over the Internet; to share it with my students.” David learned

everything he did with his students, through his “personal learning network,” contacts he

had made online.

Some blogs are designed as a class blog where students comment directly to the

teacher’s post or prompt. The blog created by this mathematics teacher was much more

complex. The main page of David’s class blog not only served as a portal to each

individual student’s blog, but also served as a vehicle for students to access all the

mathematical resources from current and previous terms.

All course content found on past and current blogs was student generated. Each

night, one student served as the class scribe. It was their task to literally recreate the

lesson and material covered that day in class; “to annotate it and articulate it so that

someone who wasn’t there should be able to follow your work and understand it.”

Scribes used examples, illustrations, and other work captured from the SMART Board

during class. They also brought in other resources or examples to assist in their

explanation of the day’s events. Other class members would then examine the scribe’s

work. They might ask questions, correct an error, or even suggest an alternate solution.

(See Appendix B for an example of a scribe post.)

While the daily scribe posts enabled students to ask questions of one another, the

Blogging on Blogging, BOB, feature allowed students to ask questions of the master

himself. Sometime previous to the test, students were required to “post a reflection of

where they are in their learning.” This might be a simple statement saying they wished

126

they had done all the assignments or studied more. Some even apologized for having to

spend more time on homework for another subject. If students took advantage and wrote

about a concept that remained confusing or difficult to understand sooner that the night

before the test, David addressed these concerns in class the next day.

David also included a chat feature on his course blogs. Students are able to chat in

real time, or leave a message that could be read by others at a later time. “Learning math

is like learning a language, and you don’t learn a language unless you use it. If the only

place they use it is in class with me, well that’s not nearly enough exposure.” As you read

these conversations, along with the BOB posts and comments, it is clear the language of

math has been extended beyond the classroom walls. (See Figure 14.)

David used both blogs and wikis with his mathematics classes. David created a

“wiki solution manual.” This wiki was filled with a variety of problems from every unit

that might be found on the final exam. In a 2-week time period, students had to

accomplish two tasks. First, they must make a significant contribution. They must

“completely solve a problem including a detailed annotation of the steps involved.”

Second, they must perform a constructive modification. This task required them to edit

someone else’s work; not their own. They could correct several minor errors or one

significant error. They could also add a graphic for clarification. The focus was always on

making their thinking transparent.

127

Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis

When David first became aware of the existence of blogs, he immediately viewed

it as a means to aggregate online content for his students, “a clearing house of

information.” David also valued his “personal learning network;” other educators who

share his passion for teaching and learning. It was through these connections that David’s

own learning became amplified; connections he felt every educator should use “to get

educated on a daily basis.”

Through interactions with other educators, David’s blog became something

entirely different. David was no longer in charge of locating and posting the content. As

Figure 14. Blogging on blogging example

128

scribes, students now “generated the lion’s share of content.” It also became a place for

his students to not only share their learning, but their misunderstandings. More

importantly it created an atmosphere where students could correct these

misunderstandings in a non-threatening way.

I think it is also important for them to see how work is done by students who understand the stuff well, and to see how I solve the problem. So they need to see all of that, because I think they need to be exposed to the way an expert thinks about it. They need to be exposed to the way a novice thinks about it. That’s got to tweak their thinking, so they move from novice, to apprentice, journey person, and expert.

Student Preparation

David was the only participant who extended Internet safety into the broader topic

of digital ethics. In addition to requiring students use pseudonyms, David discussed some

possible consequences of online behaviors. He used some highly effective videos about

Internet predators, cyber bullying and digital dirt. Guidelines for student bloggers were

also posted on the main page of his class blog. It is interesting to note that David did not

enable the chat box until these topics have been fully discussed and understood by the

students in class.

David also used several web-based applications with his blog. He said he spent

about 5 minutes explaining the application to his class; then they went home and set it up.

David grudgingly gave up instructional time for this purpose. “Even those 5 minutes, I’d

rather someone else was teaching them that.”

Student Impact

While David will tell you that professional mathematicians make their “bread and

butter” by writing, he will also tell you that he had a great disdain for using it in the

129

classroom with his students. He found the idea of writing journals to be very artificial,

contrived, inauthentic, and strained. In contrast, he found blogging to be natural form of

expression because his students were writing about the content.

So by having to blog about it on a regular basis, using the language, using the terminology, and articulating it well enough for an interested learner to learn it as well…that’s authentic. That’s real. When I started, I didn’t do this to bring writing into the mathematics’ classroom. That’s not why I started doing it. That’s been a corollary consequence. It’s not been the main focus. The main focus is learning the mathematics and articulating what you’ve learned.

While writing may indeed be corollary, David has established one practice he

found does challenge his students’ writing. David invited several mentors to participate

on the blog, again with specific goals in mind. Student teachers from a nearby university,

along with another math teacher, and a professor of mathematics, got students to delve

deeper into the content, with the goal of justifying their reasoning and clarifying their

work. He had yet another mentor with a totally different task. Her job was to focus on the

quality of learning by encouraging students to reflect on the purpose for their writing.

This was all accomplished through the blog’s comment feature.

When students in David’s math classes wrote a scribe post, they were in essence

writing the textbook. For these students, audience awareness had a very different

meaning, not the generic public audience but a more professional one. Members of the

audience that read their work included, teachers, educational professional development

leaders, graduate students writing their thesis, and college professors from around the

world. People often wrote to David asking permission to use information from the blog in

their work or presentation. They were surprised to find out it was the work of the student

and not the teacher.

130

Students felt a great sense of ownership and pride in this real-world application of

their efforts. The scribe post is a required assignment. It is interesting to note that the

quality of the post had no bearing on the grade. If they completed it, they received credit.

Even David was often surprised at the amount of effort and detail that went into a post.

It’s amazing the work they do. It’s not like it’s for mega marks, but they’re challenged within the class to do something worth recognition. So the motivation to do well in class, to write a good scribe post, is really intrinsic.

David admitted that all of his students were not receptive to blogging. One student

refused to complete his assigned scribe post for almost the entire semester. He finally

acquiesced and created a post so incredibly rich, it was published in a print journal.

David attempted to address different learning styles by adding various plugins to

his blog, third party applications that added functionality. Answer Tips made every word

on the screen clickable. Double click a word, and a window with definitions opened. Scroll

to the bottom and a link for more opened an entire page of information about that word,

filled with links to other references. Increasing the accessibility to the language of mathe-

matics had a strong impact on a large percentage of EAL students in David’s classes.

Everybody has different needs. No one learns the same way. There’s such a wide variety of resources available to them that they can pick whatever resource they need that works best for them. If they need video, they’ve got video. If they need pictures, images, they’ve got images. If they need to talk with someone about it, I’ll be adding the functionality of what I call a chat box to the blog.

Such features were not added to make his blog more appealing to the visitor. They were

added to make learning mathematics more accessible to the student. These features

served an instructional purpose, to “drench the blog in content.”

David described another impact attributed to the use of blogs with his students:

the understanding of time and space for learning had changed. Traditionally, students had

131

to be physically present in a room during a specific time of day to learn the content. With

David’s blog, students were able to engage in learning mathematics at a time and place,

in a preferred environment that was most convenient for them. “Time and space are no

longer constraints for learning. You can learn anywhere any when.”

David was keenly aware of the impact of blogging on his students. At the end of

every semester, he had his student evaluate the effectiveness of the course, including the

use of blogs. He published the results of the survey on the blog just as they were sub-

mitted. (See Appendix C for class survey for David’s mathematics class.) When asked to

provide a condensed description of the impact blogging had on his students as he knew it

to be, David replied, “It was like a neutron bomb going off. I don’t mean that in a violent

sense. In terms of the ….the excitement, the impact, the far-reaching impact that you

never imagine would have happened.”

Perhaps this spontaneous post at the conclusion of the class explains the impact of

blogging from the perspective of a student. (See Figure 15.)

Figure 15. Post from David’s class blog

132

Overview

For David, technology was a means to accomplish his goals as an instructor. He

also saw it as a device to provide his students with an authentic audience and an authentic

context as well. “I look at the technology as a way to enable students to create an

audience for them to illustrate what they’ve leaned in a meaningful way.”

David’s scribe post assignment delegated responsibility to the student. As the

assigned scribe, each student’s post became a page in their digital textbook. This was one

of the resources classmates used to complete assignments and prepare for various exams.

The relevance of these posts increased as the work of some students was used by

mathematicians and educators in professional venues, with full credit given to the

students for the product of their endeavors.

The scribe post was actually an initiator of learning, an initiator of a conversation

about mathematics, not the culminating activity. The scribe for that day took on the role

of expert. They interpreted the content, prioritized the material in levels of difficulty,

providing additional support or explanation for that which they deemed more difficult;

often with a sense of humor. This post was the launching point for questions or

suggestions by fellow classmates; the outcome of a calculated intent.

Learning is an active process, not a passive process. If you have a passive attitude towards it, you won’t be successful. By getting them engaged and working with the content and wrestling with it by a variety of ways and means, then I hope we’re amplifying some of their learning. They’re digging in deeper to the content, and hopefully they’re retaining it better.

In an earlier reference, David talked about the importance of his personal learning

network. David also had a professional blog, which was an active part of this network.

Here he often engaged, and at times enraged, in a conversation with other educational

133

bloggers. “It’s through those interactions with people in my personal learning network

that my own learning is amplified a lot.” In many of David’s posts, he discussed the work

of his students, as well as the work of other students. (See Figure 16.)

David felt reflection on learning was critical for his students as well. Having an

audience and receiving comments on their work, was one way for his students to engage

in this reflective process.

Figure 16. First post from David’s professional blog

134

So it’s not just my eyes that look at their work. The kids see that because other people can then leave those comments. That’s another part towards encouraging them toward metacognition; reflecting upon where they are in their learning; trying to get better at it.

This was a fundamental purpose for the Blogging on Blogging post required of each

student at the end of a unit, just prior to the test.

David understood the importance of reflection on the part of the instructor. This

was a frequent topic on his professional blog. (See Figure 17.)

Figure 17. Second post from David’s professional blog

135

This constant reflection was evident when David discussed a possible future use

for the blog. When a student’s scribe post was selected to be displayed in the Carnival of

Mathematics, a blog dedicated to mathematics, this sparked an idea. All submissions to a

carnival blog are voluntary. Each submission is reviewed for its merit before it is accepted.

David considered having students nominate a post each week for submission to the

carnival, another way of exposing student work to the knowledgeable, scrutinizing eyes of

other mathematicians.

There’s a couple things that will come from that. One is my students looking at each other’s work with a critical eye, looking for the best work; which will do wonders for the self-esteem of that student, but also encourage other students to rise to that challenge. Second, if it gets published in the Carnival of Mathematics, and there’s no reason why it wouldn’t, then that will draw a different audience with much more sophisticated mathematical eyes to look at the student’s work; perhaps leaving a random comment here and there; highlighting some of the good work done by the other kids; underscoring that sense of audience that I try so hard to get across to my students in a very real way that by me speaking, I could never accomplish.

David also had some thoughts about the future of blogging as well. He described

an analogy that suggested blogs were in their primary form, whose future was

unpredictable as they may morph into something totally different, perhaps only slightly

representative of their original form.

We’re so early in this process of educational blogging. Dave Cormier is a blogger out in eastern Canada, Prince Edward Island. He describes it like this, I thought was very apt, he says: way back when in the 20s or 30s when the first car or automobile was made and brought on the road, the model T, they didn’t call it a car. They called it a horseless carriage. They called it a horseless carriage, because the word didn’t exist. We look at that today and say: horseless carriage, how quaint. You obviously didn’t have the language for it. I think that where we’re at right now. Where we’re at right now is we’re living in the time of the horseless carriage. Because people are going to look back and say: They called it a blog. How quaint is that? We’re not at the end of something. We’re at the beginning of something. We’re at the beginning of something really big. Like the change that this is leading to, not in education and in our society as a whole, it’s

136

the kind of seed change on the order of magnitude that the Gutenberg press was to literature and to literacy. We really have no idea where this is going to go.

This may help to explain why David felt he is in “constant beta;” searching for the best

way to “amplify my student’s learning and to facilitate their success.”

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

An essential purpose of this study was to investigate how K-12 teachers are using

blogs and/or wikis in the classroom. Rather than just summarizing the types of activities

done, this researcher chose to look deeper into the intent for utilizing these tools for

student instruction. As blogs and wikis are web-based applications and can be considered

a form of technology, this study also probed to find the reasons behind teachers’

determination to use technology in lieu of other methods of instruction. This chapter will

address and discuss each research question. Conclusions will be presented, and

implications for the use of blogs or wikis in K-16 education will be considered.

Research Question 1: How Participants Used

Blogs and/or Wikis in the Classroom

Three generalizations regarding the use of blogs and/or wikis were determined:

support of a specific project or event; a separate class; and a seamless tool to support

learning. (See Table 2 for a breakdown of tool uses.) While five of the participants used

blogs and/or wikis as an instructional device for a specific event or project, Mike used his

class blog as a communication tool. It was his method of boosting his students’ self-

concept by praising and encouraging their efforts in class. He used the fact his students

were highly motivated by technology as a way to offer increased opportunities to read

and write. This was an ongoing project that was used when time allowed, or when Mike

was out of the classroom to communicate with his class.136

Table 2

Breakdown of Tool Uses

Primary Tool

Use of blog and/or wiki Posts made to main pagePortal to

individual student blogs

Comments Students make or receive comments

Katie Blog Seamless tool Teacher Yes Audience Make & receive

Mike Blog Event or project Teacher No Students Make

Rita Blog Class Teacher Yes Students Make & receive

Grant Blog Event or project Teacher YesStudents & audience

Make & receive

Evan Blog Event or project Teacher NoStudents & audience

Make & (receive on final project only)

Donna Blog Event or project Teacher No Students Make

JeffStudent Wikis

Event or project Students N/A N/A N/A

David Blog Seamless tool Teacher and students NoStudents & audience

Make & receive

137

138

Grant’s blog was also ongoing, but it was a routine, scheduled event. Every week

Grant’s students wrote about an event in the news. The blog also served as a showcase

for other student work and projects. Evan, Donna, and Jeff used a blog or wiki for a

specific project; a project that was directly connected to curricular content. Rita’s

students met 2 days a week for a class specifically designed to use blogs.

For David and Katie, blogs served multiple purposes, all centered on student

learning. In addition to narrative blog posts, Katie used various forms of audio and visual

media to showcase student learning. Students not only displayed their work, but they

often explained and/or reflected on it as well. She also invited university students

studying student writing to act as mentors for her students. Katie’s class blog was used

across all content areas, and was not limited to just language arts. Katie described blogs

as “a way to demonstrate our learning and a way that makes learning transparent.”

The daily scribe post was the main function of David’s class blog. This was an

opportunity for these high school mathematics students to analyze, interpret, and recreate

the day’s lesson well enough for any interested party to understand. David saw the blog

as a tool to support learning by including features like a chat box, links to outside

resources, translation and dictionary tools, and instructional videos on the blog. David

also arranged for experts to mentor his students in order to deepen their knowledge and

understanding of mathematics. Like Katie, David’s blog served as a window into his

students’ learning.

It is interesting to note that, in this instance, the age of the students did not impact

the approach teachers chose. Katie, a first grade teacher, and David, a high school

mathematics teacher, both saw blogs as a way to visualize their students’ thoughts; to

139

make their thinking transparent. In order to provide opportunities for students to reveal

their thinking, both Katie and David allowed students to post original content to the blog;

David on the main blog page and Katie via individual student blogs. For their students,

blogging was an expected activity, not an event associated with a specific project or

event. This mindset contributed to the seamlessness of the technology.

Research Question 1a: What was the Intent or

Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis?

Various studies have analyzed the association of a teacher’s beliefs and their use

of technology. According to Pedersen and Liu (2003), a teacher’s implementation of

technology is influenced by the educational beliefs she has acquired over time. Zhao,

Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) found that when a teacher’s pedagogical beliefs were

consistent with her choice and implementation of technology, the chance for successful

completion and execution of the project were significantly increased. Evidence from this

study on the use of blogs and wikis suggests that while the intent to use the tool serves as

the foundation for the design of the activity, there is perhaps an even more fundamental

connection; a connection between the determination to use technology, the intent, and a

teacher’s pedagogical beliefs. (See Table 3 of participant quotes.)

Table 3

Participant Quotes Illustrating Determination to Use Technology, Intent for Using Blogs or Wikis, and Pedagogical Beliefs

Determination to use technology Intent for using blogs or wikis Aligned with pedagogical beliefs

Mike

“Is this the best way of doing it, or can they do it more efficiently or just as effectively?”

“How can it be more useful? How can we get the kids more involved? What benefits are we looking for? Basically what are the benefits?”

“I’ll celebrate their accomplishments and brag about them. So just a place where I can kind of encourage them, and they’re actually reading, responding, leaving comments back. So it’s literacy and just a place to pump them up a little bit.”

“I wrote a book for children called Build Yourself for Success: A Kid's Guide to Success.”

Katie

“I don’t do things just because of the technology. I just use the technology to support whatever I’m doing.”

“You have to always be weighing what’s the best way that I can teach this so the kids can understand it.”

“My blog is mainly reflection about what is happening in our classroom. And it’s turning more and more into a sharing of our learning rather than just what we did.”

“Blogs and wikis are just one more tool that I use in my classroom to support learning These tools give us a way to demonstrate our learning in a way that allows transparency, feedback and a global audience.”

Rita

“I think it’s a matter of planning what kind of lesson I’m going to do and what kind of standards I’m going to incorpo-rate. With blogging, it’s just how far can I go? There’s so many things out there I can do.”

“Writing is kind of my first goal as far as …Doing writing with our 5th graders in a more creative way.”

“Overall I wanted it to be an exciting way for us to review things we were learning in the classroom and go deeper with. All those things you don’t have time for in a regular classroom.”

“I find when they’re interested in some-thing, they’re just more successful. They learn more. They get involved in our lessons more. I find motivation is just a real hard thing.”

(table continues)

140

141

Determination to use technology Intent for using blogs or wikis Aligned with pedagogical beliefs

Grant

“Ultimately I think the tools that really grab me are the ones that can make connections between kids and that they can share things among themselves.”

“Whatever helps the kids correspond with each other, collaborate, communicate with each other; I think that helps. Blogs for me were just a natural extension of that.”

“If I can get the kids together, talking together, socializing in cooperative groups, whatever you want to call it, things worked out better.”

Evan

“It comes down to when I can get access for them on the computer.”

“Just to have a virtual space where you’re limited by the confinements of physicalness or time.”

“Everything that I do with computers now is basically an enhancement. We do things with studycasts, blogs, and stuff, but I can’t really ensure that every stu-dent has access outside of my classroom. So I can’t engrain the technology into my curriculum if it was 1-to-1.”

“Literally, if I had 1-to-1 I wouldn’t use the textbook. I would have enough resources available, at my disposal, just through government sites and different sites. I wouldn’t need the textbook at all. The only thing a textbook is for me right now is an anchor that kids can take home.”

Donna

“If it helps kids learn the material, or expands their knowledge, or prepares them for the real world, and it’s related to technology.”

“I wanted to focus in on issues that were open ended. There was no right or wrong answer. I didn't want them to think that they could just give me what they thought I wanted.”

“I’m really doing the research and finding out what the research studies say and what the experts say.”

“I have always loved doing this; picking a topic or an issue, researching this; and I used to do this by spending my summers in the library. Then finding all I can about that and just studying something.”

(table continues)

141

142

Determination to use technology Intent for using blogs or wikis Aligned with pedagogical beliefs

Jeff

“I don’t start with the technology, I start with cooperative learning.”

“I try not to do technology for the sake of doing technology. If I can come up with good objectives that using the technology is going to fulfill better than not using it, then I use it.”

“I was more intrigued with wikis though. Just with my connection between cooperative learning and technology. That is the perfect melding between those two.”

“Well, the number one reason, year in and year out, people loose their jobs is their inability to work with their co-workers. It has nothing to do with their skills or anything else. It's their inability to work with their co-workers. If our role in education is to develop a work force, then we need to be developing collabora-tive skills. With the advent of technology, if you're not using wikis and things like that, you're missing a big part of collaboration with technology.”

David

“So, how do I make decisions about what technology to use … if it will do anything to facilitate this network of pedagogy, amplify what the students are learning, help create an authentic audience for them, give them the means to make their thinking transparent, and enable them to watch it, do it, teach it, then I’m going to snag it.”

“I look at the technology as a way to enable students to crate an audience for them to illustrate what they’ve learned in a meaningful way.”

“Cause you can’t really understand what someone is thinking or what’s going on in their head; until they show it to you or illustrate it to you. So I want to find different ways to make what’s going on inside students’ heads transparent to me and to each other.”

142

143

Katie used technology to support instruction and student learning. In addition to

individual student posts, a variety of plugins were used to exhibit student work and

inform the audience. “My blog is mainly a reflection about what is happening in our

classroom. And it’s turning more and more into a sharing of our learning rather than just

what we did.” This was a simple yet effective way for students to demonstrate their

learning and make their thinking transparent.

Mike looked for an effective way to use technology to benefit his students. He

chose a blog to help promote positive self-concepts for his students. Evidence of a

connection to his pedagogical beliefs can be found along the side of the class blog where

Mike inserted a note about a book that he wrote. This book was written for children to

help them develop good attitudes and positive thoughts about themselves and their future.

It was evident this underlying philosophy had profoundly influenced his designed

purpose to "celebrate their accomplishments and brag about them;" an effective way to

build self-esteem.

Rita’s case was unique as the use of technology was predetermined. The primary

purpose for the class was to use blogs as an instructional tool that could support all the

content areas, especially writing. “Writing is kind of my first goal; doing writing with our

fifth graders in a more creative way.” Rita found blogs to be very motivating and

interesting for her students; factors she felt promoted student learning. “When they’re

interested in something, they’re just more successful. They learn more.”

Grant looked for technology that facilitated connections between students and

enabled shared understandings and ideas. His projects were designed to enable students

to collaborate and communicate with an outside audience. “If I can get the kids together,

144

talking together, socializing in cooperative groups, whatever you want to call it, things

worked out better.” Blogs were the ideal device for Grant to accomplish his goals.

Evan’s book blog enabled over 300 local students and others from various states

and countries to have a virtual space to build an understanding and share ideas. Yet Evan

felt limited by his access to technology. Scheduling lab time did not allow him to act on

his pedagogical belief that technology should be engrained into his teaching.

I’ve told people before. If you want to set me loose, give everyone of my students a computer they can take home every day. We’ll be able to get a lot more done. We’ll be more efficient and we’ll get more actual education done. If they would give me one-to-one computers, that would dramatically change my curriculum.

Evan considered his current use of computer technology to be an enhancement, not a true

representation of his ideal leaning environment.

Donna was currently working on her Master's Degree in instructional technology.

For her current action research project she was studying the impact of blogs on ACT

reading scores. The research she read directly influenced her intent.

I'm really doing the research and finding out what the research studies have to say, and what the experts say. One of the important things that research was showing is that kids tended to do better with their writing if they know more than just the classroom teacher was going to read it.

Donna's interest in research was not newly acquired. This was an interest she had for

many years. "I have always loved doing this; picking a topic or an issue, researching this;

and I used to do this by spending my summers in the library. And then finding all I can

about that, and just studying something." Educational research was clearly a driving force

behind Donna's design for instructional technology. Donna’s blog on Taylor’s story also

met her fundamental criteria in the decision to use technology, as it expanded student

knowledge of the real-world issue, teen steroid use.

145

Jeff was very conscientious about reflecting on his choice to use technology.

While he made a concerted effort to use technology to improve instruction and student

learning, cooperative learning was the primary design influence for Jeff.

Well, the number one reason, year in and year out, people loose their jobs is their inability to work with their co-workers. It has nothing to do with their skills or anything else. It's their inability to work with their co-workers. If our role in education is to develop a work force, then we need to be developing collaborative skills. With the advent of technology, if you're not using wikis and things like that, you're missing a big part of collaboration with technology. I don't start with technology, I start with cooperative learning.

These ideals were perpetrated further in his role as curricular technology consultant and

cooperative education trainer for his school. Cooperative learning was central to Jeff’s

instructional decisions.

David was quite definitive in determination to use technology for student

learning.

If it will do anything to facilitate this network of pedagogy, amplify what the students are learning, help create an authentic audience for them, give them the means to make their thinking transparent, and enable them to watch it, do it, teach it, then I’m going to snag it.

Scribe posts were the embodiment of David’s fundamental beliefs about technology use.

By recreating the day’s lesson, scribes became the teacher, articulating their thought

processes while presenting the content, all within the public forum of a blog. This post

was in essence a verbal window into a student’s thoughts and understanding of

mathematics; an illustration of their knowledge.

Promoting a positive student self-concept, applying research findings to

instruction, enabling transparent thinking, creating a virtual place, and incorporating

cooperative learning strategies, are not only a foundation for instructional technology

146

design, they are the foundation for a deeper, over-riding philosophy. The evidence

suggests it is the pedagogical beliefs of these participants that drive the intentionality for

the design of technology-rich activities.

Research Question 1b: How and to What Extent Do These

Tools Support Constructivist Learning Theory?

As presented in Chapter III, constructivism is a learning theory and not a pre-

scription for a learning strategy or a teaching methodology (Moore, 2004; V. Richardson,

2003). However, Perkins (1992) notes, "If learning has this constructive character

inherently, it follows that teaching practices need to be supportive of the construction that

must occur" (p. 49). This can be accomplished through the design and implementation of

learning environments. Brooks and Brooks (1999), Ferguson (2001), and Sprague and

Dede (1999) suggested teacher beliefs that can promote such constructivist learning

environments:

Learning is relevant and meaningful to students

Activities are problem-based with a focus on real-world issues

Student inquiry is encouraged to promote knowledge construction

Enable learners to interpret multiple perspectives

Collaboration is encouraged

Student autonomy is encouraged and accepted

Evidence supporting each of the listed teacher behaviors was drawn from participant inter-

views as well as teacher, class, and student blogs. (See Table 4 for a comparison chart of

participant beliefs that promote a constructivist learning environment.) The next section

will address data representative of each teacher behavior present for each participant.

147

Table 4

Participant Beliefs that Promote a Constructivist Learning Environment

Teacher Beliefs Katie Mike Rita GrantEvan Donna Jeff David

Learning is relevant and meaningful to students

X X X X X X X X

Activities should be authentic and are often problem-based

X X X X X X

Student inquiry is encouraged to promote knowledge construction

X X X X

Enable learners to interpret multiple perspectives

X X X X X X X X

Collaboration is encouraged

X X X X X

Encourage and accept student autonomy

X X

Note. X = present in data

Learning is Relevant and Meaningful to Students

For activities to be meaningful and relevant, they be must authentic and of interest

or importance to the student (Means & Olson, 1995). This was the case for all of the

participants, but in varying degrees. The student work associated with Donna, Jeff, Evan,

and David’s class was of high appeal and relevance to the students’ lives. Self-selection

facilitated student interest as Rita, Grant and Katie often gave students a choice of what

to include in their blog post. Mike’s blog was unique as students were often the subject of

148

his posts. Students frequently emulated Mike’s type of encouraging posts when they

commented on the blog.

Activities Should Be Authentic and Are Often Problem-Based

It matters not whether activities are simulations or actual practice; to be authentic

they must provide opportunities that enable students to think and act as an expert

(Honebein, 1996). In this setting, students can develop a deeper, richer understanding of

the knowledge domain (Sprague & Dede, 1999, p. 8). This was the case for five of the

participants.

David’s scribe post and Jeff’s Literature Circles wiki were designed for students to

create content that served as a resource for other students. Their peers were dependent on

the accuracy and thoroughness of their work. Authentic learning opportunities were not

present in Mike’s blog. However, Mike used a wiki to provide an opportunity for his ELL

students to act as language coaches for younger, less capable students. Initially, Donna’s

blog served as a learning space as students responded to teacher posts regarding student use

of steroids. Later, this space transformed into a demonstration of acquired knowledge as

students used this blog to relate ideas that might assist and inform adults about this serious

issue. Grant involved not only his students but students from around the world as they

studied an historical fiction novel with the actual author as a mentor. Rita did design

occasional opportunities for authentic activities like the students’ reaction to the movie A

Planet in Peril, and their post on how they can make a difference in this serious issue.

As with the first teacher behavior category, there was a range of authenticity as

well as the frequency of opportunities for such experiences. Data from this study revealed

problem-based activities were only offered by the three high school teachers; an

149

intentional decision to make use of the blog’s design to increase the level of authenticity

and relevance to the student.

Student Inquiry is Encouraged to Promote Knowledge Construction

Knowledge construction rather than reproduction is a tenet of constructivism

(Jonassen, 1992). Sprague and Dede (1999) suggested framing open-ended questions and

encouraging students to question their peers are viable methods for promoting student

inquiry. Without a single exact answer, students are challenged to probe and investigate

as they go beyond the expected to formulate their own understanding.

Solving authentic problems is a natural stimulus for student inquiry. The open-

ended blogging and wiki activities designed by Jeff, David, and Donna provided the

perfect environment for student inquiry. Student products were original, and in David’s

class often motivated other students to produce products of the same or better caliber.

Evan also posed open-ended questions to his students. Questions like, “What similarities

do you see with the guerrilla warfare tactics used in Missouri in 1863 and Iraq in 2008?”

require students to synthesize information, necessitating a much higher level of thinking

than finding a single correct answer.

Enable Learners to Interpret Multiple Perspectives

Commenting is a unique factor associated with blogs. When students post their

work to a blog, they expect, even anxiously anticipate, receiving comments from a novice

as well as an expert audience. These comments can serve as a form of evaluation or

stimulate an argument giving students a different perspective than their original posted

thoughts. Comments can also ignite a conversation as ideas and possible clarifications are

150

exchanged through a series of responses; presenting all parties involved in the

conversation a chance to listen and reflect on the interchange of ideas.

Allowing students to make and/or receive comments was the source of multiple

perspectives, a feature utilized by seven of the eight participants. (See Table 2 for a

breakdown of tool uses.) Despite the absence of the commenting feature on wikis, Jeff’s

students were still compelled to interpret multiple perspectives. In order to create

collaborative content, students had to hear, analyze, and synthesize individual ideas to

produce a unified piece of work. This entailed a high degree of reflection and

compromise.

Collaboration is Encouraged

Collaboration provides the groundwork for the sharing of multiple perspectives

(Honebein, 1996), as it affords students the opportunity to share ideas, ask questions,

discuss concepts, and revise their ideas and misconceptions (Sprague & Dede, 1999, p.

8). A wiki is a natural way to facilitate collaboration. Mike and Jeff used a wiki to

establish this opportunity for their students; collaboration was at the heart of their intent.

Again, David’s scribe post was a perfect vehicle for collaboration. While only

one student authored the post, other members of the class shared their opinions, made

suggestions, and asked questions. Katie’s students often received general comments from

a variety of audience members. However, Katie had acquired university students to serve

as mentors for each of her students. This was where the power of collaboration was most

evident. Mentors structured their comments carefully to support, encourage, and model, a

perfect way for these first graders to reflect on their work and revise their

151

misconceptions. (See Figure 18.) Like Katie, David also used mentors to collaborate with

his students.

Collaboration on Evan’s book blog was authentic, but limited. Asking questions

and discussing the events of the book with the author were highly engaging. While the

public could view these interactions, a fluid collaborative exchange of ideas was limited

by a blog’s inherent commenting structure. When students asked questions of the author,

she would respond directly to them and vise versa. Because this was a class blog,

Figure 18. A comment from a university blogging buddy to one of Katie’s students

152

students could not comment on a comment. They could only comment to the original post

on the blog, so a second response to a comment may not be physically located next to the

intended comment as blog posts are in chronological order. (See Figure 19 to illustrate

this point.) While not ideal, this was the most efficient way to manage the interaction of

over 300 participants.

Figure 19. Class blog with one-way vs. two-way commenting

Encourage and Accept Student Autonomy

If learners are to be expected to construct their own knowledge and not simply

assimilate that of the teacher, they must be afforded the opportunity to do so (Jonassen,

153

Peck, & Wilson, 1999). This requires a shift in control as learning becomes more student-

centered, giving the student a greater voice and more ownership of her learning

(Honebein, 1996). “These students—in pursuit of new understandings—are led by their

own ideas and informed by the ideas of others” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 103).

Two participants used blogs and/or wikis to provide opportunities for students to

pursue new understandings. As a group, Jeff’s class generated categories that would be

necessary to produce a resource similar to Cliff Notes. These categories were then used

as a framework for each group to construct the wiki that served as the reference for their

self-selected novel. This activity required students to apply literary concepts as they

analyzed their novel for elements necessary to complete their task.

As class scribes, David’s students consistently created content for the class blog.

A task that required students to evaluate their understanding of the material and articulate

this well enough for others to achieve the same understanding. Students used whatever

aids would help convey their information, drawings, diagrams, analogies, even colored

text. Acting as the instructor was a highly active learning experience.

For Jeff and David’s students, working as a group provided ideal conditions for

students to reflect upon and modify their thoughts as they heard different ideas and

opinions from other group members. Students wrestled with their knowledge along with

information acquired from group interactions to create new understandings.

Not all behaviors were exhibited in the same frequency or to the same degree by

the eight participants in this study. What is clear is the technology, blogs and wikis,

provided the opportunities for teachers to act on their beliefs. More than simply providing

a public area to display student work, blogs enabled the audience to become actively

154

involved by questioning or disagreeing with the student’s thoughts and ideas; suggesting

ideas or interpretations of their own; and bringing in other print or human references that

might extend or enhance the original material. While opportunities abound, it is still

incumbent upon the teacher to construct activities that take advantage of this potential.

Research Question 2: Student Preparation to Use Blogs or Wikis

Two common categories emerged from the data regarding the preparation of

students to use blog or wikis, audience awareness and online safety. (See Table 5 for a

comparison chart of student preparation.) It is important to note that while these

categories were present in the interview data, not all the participants talked about these

topics with their students. These situations will be clarified in the following sections.

Audience Awareness

Katie, Mike, Grant, Evan, and David all discussed the fact student work no longer

had the typical audience of teacher, classroom peers, and parents with their students.

Their online document now was available for any and all to view and critique. These

teachers lectured about the importance for students to check their work for errors because

it now had such a public audience. Evan made it a much more personal form of

evaluation by telling his students, “People are going to see and judge you based on how

you write.”

Rita, Donna, and Jeff all talked about the importance of having an audience other

than the classroom teacher. In the interview data, Rita consistently talked about the

benefits of having a pubic audience for her students. She believed they took more

ownership of their work and reflected on their work more frequently because they knew a

large number of people could read their work and make comments. While Rita did not

155

directly state she instructed her students on the topic of audience awareness, evidence of

such was revealed in one of her blog posts. “Reading your work out loud is a great way to

proofread your writing.  You should do this before you publish every single post.”

Table 5

How Do Teachers Prepare Their Students to Use Blogs or Wikis?

Katie Mike Rita Grant Evan Donna Jeff David

Audience awareness X X X X X

Online safety X X X X X X

Writing style differences

X X

Comment modeling X X X

Digital ethics X

Procedural instruction

X X X

Collaborative ownership and accountability

X

Note. X = present in data

Jeff designed his wiki project to have an authentic purpose which did provide an

authentic audience, an audience limited to students who attended the same school. This

was an action based on Jeff’s belief that, “Their best audience is each other.” In fact Jeff

believed his students were more accountable by writing for each other than if they had

written for anyone.

To write for the world wide world is easy because the world is anonymous. If you’re writing to a specific person or a specific group of 10 people, you need to be much more careful. Those people can confront you and can question you and are relying on your wisdom for whatever you’re doing to steer them the right way.

156

If you’re writing to the whole world, you can assume that maybe no one is ever going to look at it.

Online Safety

Online safety was another common factor. Certain practices were followed by all:

students were not allowed to use their complete names; no personal information was

allowed in a post; and no names were associated with any pictures. Katie also screened

comments for personal information that may lead to the identification of a student, such

as a relative signing their comment with a last name. All the participants except Mike and

Jeff discussed the issue of online safety with their students. Jeff’s wiki was accessed

through Blackboard and could only be viewed by parents and invited guests. Mike was

the only party that could post original content to the blog, and he also screened all the

comments. No revealing information was allowed to be posted.

Online safety was a significant concern for Donna. While her students created and

signed a safe blogging policy, she removed the blog from public viewing and placed it on

a content management system which was password protected after the project was

completed. Her concern for online safety might explain the reason she did not make

student work available for comments from the general public.

Writing Style Differences

Current methods of communication have given birth to a more informal form of

writing, raising the question that this is now an accepted practice with today’s students

(Shortis, 2007). Rita and Evan made it clear to their students that there is a distinct

difference between the informal writing form of texting with its cryptic spellings and the

formal more standard written form. Blogs posts were expected to be written in the

157

standard vernacular, without exception. None of the remaining participants indicated this

issue was addressed with their students.

Comment Modeling

Commenting was an essential function for Grant. “If I didn’t have other

classrooms commenting to the work they’re doing, then I probably wouldn’t be doing it

(blogging).” Grant was looking for more than “drive by commenting.” He wanted more

substantial comments that would “push the original writer a little bit and change their

thinking.” Grant understood this was an acquired skill. Every week he selected a

comment received by one of the students to use as a model. The class analyzed the

quality of that comment, both the good and bad features, and discussed possible

improvements.

Rita also discussed the quality of commenting with her students and made it the

subject of one of her posts to the class blog. (See Figure 20.)

Modeling comments took on a different purpose for Mike. One function of his

class blog was to serve as a means to increase the self-concept of his students. His posts

Figure 20. Rita’s post on making quality comments

158

served as a model for other students as they too offered comments filled with praise and

encouragement for their classmates.

Digital Ethics

David was the only participant to address digital ethics with his students. Videos

were posted to the blog on the topics of digital dirt, the fact nothing posted to the Web

can be removed, bullying, and Internet safety. Every student must tell David they have

watched all the posted videos, read the list of guidelines for student bloggers, and agreed

to abide by this policy. He also offered students the opportunity to make suggestions for

revisions to the policy.

Procedural Instruction

Only three participants provided their students with procedural instruction on the

operation of a blog or wiki. For Rita, this was a natural outcome of conducting a class

dedicated to the use of a blog. Katie hoped her students would gain a level of independ-

ence after group instruction in a lab setting which was done early in the school year. This

was important as blogging was an independent center activity during guided reading.

While David provided his students with technical instruction, he did so reluctantly.

“Even those 5 minutes, I’d rather someone else was teaching them that.”

Collaborative Ownership and Accountability

Jeff said he had developed a list of theories and realities about using wikis with

students. People often assume the ideal will happen; “everything works out wonderfully,

and everyone participates, and everybody edits.” The reality, according to Jeff, is a few

students do the majority of the work to earn a desired grade. To alleviate this problem,

Jeff assigned roles to each student. This gave everyone a responsibility and helped make

159

editing someone else’s work an acceptable practice. “The idea that every kid was

accountable for a certain aspect at every step along the way ensured that you’re going to

get higher quality work, and all the kids are involved in a vested interest.”

Ownership was another aspect that required instructional attention. Collaboration

to create content was not a natural activity for Jeff’s students. It was difficult for them to

release ownership of the words they placed on the wiki. Ideas discussed in group plan-

ning sessions were also considered intellectual property. Developing the understanding

that this is a collaborative writing task is strengthened by Jeff’s metaphor of changing a

quilt with its separate pieces into a comforter, a uniformed piece that flows together.

Out of eight participants, only three found it necessary to actually take instruc-

tional time to teach their students how to use the tool. Modeling proper commenting

techniques was the only other strategy unique to using a blog. These results suggest

participants did not consider it necessary to devote large amounts of time teaching their

students how to use a blog or wiki. Once the students understood which buttons to push,

emphasis was placed on the purpose for using the tool, not the tool itself.

Research Question 3: How and to What Extent are Blogs or

Wikis Structured to Promote or Enrich Student Writing?

Access to an Authentic Audience

While there is not single instructional method for writing instruction (Raimes,

1991), Chapman (2006) and Heap (1997) suggested specific techniques can be used to

enhance student writing. One of these techniques is to provide students with access to an

authentic audience; one that is represented by more than the classroom teacher and not

contrived to suit a purpose. Some participants escalated simple audience access to

160

audience interaction by enabling their students to make and/or receive comments. While

the extent to which each participant used blogs or wikis to promote or enrich student

writing varied, every participant expressed the importance of having an audience for their

students’ work, but the type of audience varied. (See Table 6.)

Table 6

How and to What Extent are Blogs or Wikis Structured to Promote or Enrich Student Writing?

Katie Mike Rita Grant Evan Donna Jeff David

Access to an authentic audience

X X X X X X X X

Authentic purpose X X X X

Opportunity to write X X X

Publishing forum X X X

Application of language skills

X X X

Use of mentors X X X

Collaboration Venue X

Note. X = present in data for primary tool

Katie first used her blog as a place to display her students’ work. Then she saw

how motivated they were to write because they had an audience; they had someone to

write for. When Katie saw the power having an audience had on her students, she began

looking for other schools to blog with and exchange comments. Her blogging tool Class

Blogmeister, is expressly used by educators. Katie was able to find schools looking for

partners through Blogmeister’s forum. Another contact was established with a school in

Australia. Katie had received a comment on her blog asking Katie to comment in return.

161

When she did, she discovered it was a student, not a teacher. The student had actually

been blogging at home with his father over their holiday break. Kathy was able to begin a

partnership with this student’s second grade class. A single blog post from a second grade

student made a significant impact on two classes on two different continents.

Mike’s blog was not structured to receive outside comments. His posts were

directed toward the children, not the general public. He did use the fact the blog was

public to motivate his students to write more carefully and check for errors. The question

must be asked, if students never received a comment from the public, how much care did

they really take? While Mike’s blog was truly intended to be used with just his class,

Mike indicated he would have done more with his blog if he knew his students and

parents could see it at home. Only two of Mike’s students had Internet access.

Access to an authentic audience was present in the data for Rita and Grant.

Allowing personal blogs for their students provided an avenue for audience comments to

go directly to the individual student; increasing their exposure to multiple perspectives

and the potential to extend their thinking. These teachers felt strongly enough about the

importance of audience involvement, they solicited comment partners by inviting other

schools to participate on their blogs. Grant’s words make it clear just how important

access to an audience was. “It means very little if they’re posting and have no audience.”

Evan also invited outside members of the blogging community to participate in

his book blog. It is important to note the difference, as participants were not interacting

with each other; they were interacting with Evan and the author of the book. While this

may seem limiting, having access to the thoughts and ideas from all who shared in this

162

experience was still a powerful way to view different views about the same question and

perhaps offer another perspective. (See Figure 21.)

Figure 21. A post from Evan’s book blog

For Donna this was an essential reason for using a blog. Her research indicated

students wrote better when they knew they had a public audience. Yet Donna did not

allow anyone other than her and her students to make comments. The topics of teen

steroid use and the ownership of artifacts are pertinent to so many, it is important to

question the impact the interaction with a truly public audience, perhaps even outside

Figure 21. A post from Evan’s book blog

163

experts, may have had on Donna’s students. Opportunities for student reflection and the

creation of new understandings were certainly missed.

Jeff considered the most important audience students could have was other

students, so using a password protected wiki served his purpose. Audience awareness

remained an important topic to address with this class. Jeff felt there was no “true”

audience, if there was no purpose for writing. Creating a resource that was used by other

students for an exam was highly authentic and made their task more critical as others

depended on the quality of their work.

David considered an authentic audience an important factor in his students’

learning. Finding mentors to engage in a conversation with his students was a way for

David to provide his students with additional eyes to scrutinize their work, and again

provide that different perspective. David understood the direct impact this had on his

students. “That’s another part towards encouraging them toward metacognition;

reflecting upon where they are in their learning; trying to get better at it.” A blog was the

mechanism that provided the audience so students had the opportunity to “illustrate what

they’ve learned in meaningful way.”

Authentic Purpose

As discussed in Chapter II, students often write for an imaginary audience, one

contrived by the teacher for a specific writing assignment (Bos & Krajcik, 1998; Cohen

& Riel, 1989; Heap, 1989; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Establishing an authentic

purpose for writing can be a challenge. Blogs however remove the barriers of place and

time and offer endless possibilities for a dynamic legitimate audience that can help to

create an authentic purpose.

164

David and Katie took advantage of this potential and provided their students with

mentors. As their students wrote about their learning, mentors commented on their work,

offering constructive comments, encouragement, and recognition of achievements.

Students in Evan’s class had the exceptional opportunity to participate in a book blog

with the author of the book they were studying—a chance to see writing through the eyes

of an expert.

David and Jeff also designed a learning task where their students became the

experts. David’s mathematics students took on the role of instructor as they recreated the

day’s lesson based on their understanding of the concept. As the expert, they fielded any

questions for clarification from their peers. Jeff’s students also took on the role of expert.

Their task was to create a resource so complete, another student, unfamiliar with the

content, could use it to answer test questions.

Opportunity to Write

For David, writing was a corollary. It was not one of his objectives for using the

blog. Providing his students with an opportunity to write was an essential reason Mike

used a blog with his students. Blogs were one more way for his ELL students to use their

emerging literacy skills; something Mike hoped to increase in the future. Rita created the

blogging class with an expressed interest to work on the application of writing skills. As

for Evan, he considered blogging and writing to be synonymous. “Blogging is writing.

Any chance that you have the students writing more, it’s going to help their overall

ability to communicate.”

165

Publishing Forum

Katie, Grant, Rita, and David all considered their blog to be a publishing forum, a

place to display students’ work, but not simply an electronic bulletin board. Students,

even Katie’s first graders, understood the purpose for a blog. By posting their work

students were inviting the audience to take note. To use Grant’s analogy, they were

fishing for comments. Comments were an acknowledgement of their work, giving value

and purpose to their efforts.

Application of Language Skills

Most of the participants discussed the need for students to proofread their work,

but for some this appeared to be a secondary remark, not a primary emphasis. As the

instructor for an actual blogging class, Rita stated she consistently discussed the need for

accuracy with her students. Katie invited university students to act as writing mentors for

her students. Mentors commented on students’ work complimenting students when they

demonstrated proper conventions and encouraged them for attempting to sound out

difficult words. These mentors also modeled correct language use, most of the time.

Jeff’s wiki project required a high level of literary analysis and application. While it

appears they represent a wide range of grade levels, the focus for all of these teachers was

in the area of language arts.

Use of Mentors

This use of mentors has already been discussed multiple times in the discussion

for research question three, but it is still important to note the public nature of blogs

enabled university students and experts in the field from across their respective countries

166

and provinces to mentor children. These mentors affected not only the students’ writing,

but their thinking and learning as well.

Collaboration Venue

Jeff was the only participant to use a wiki as his primary tool. He viewed this as

the ideal device to teach his students about collaborative writing; a process where several

students create a single unified piece of writing. Jeff felt many get this confused with peer

editing.

I think a lot of people don't see the difference between peer editing and collaborative writing. You know peer writing is just getting feedback on your paper. It's just your name on top. Collaborative writing brings up a whole gamut and a whole realm of different strengths and different considerations that you have to have.

Jeff believed collaboration entailed the need to negotiate meaning, giving students the

opportunity to critique, reflect, and modify.

Research Question 4: How Do K-12 Teachers Perceive

These Tools Have Impacted Their Students?

The perceptions of participants regarding the impact blogs and wikis had on

students was just as varied as the perceptions regarding the impact blogs and wikis had

on student writing. (See Table 7 for a breakdown of perceptions of student impact.) It

appears the perceived student impacts are related to the participants’ intent to use blog or

wikis with their students. (See Table 8 for participants’ intent to use blogs or wikis.)

167

Table 7

How Do K-12 Teachers Perceive These Tools Have Impacted Their Students?

Katie Mike Rita Grant EvanDonn

aJeff David

Increased motivation X X X X X XImproved student writing X X

Increased desire to write

X X X

Increased learning X X X

Improved performance X X X X

Increased accountability X

Increased opportunity to write X X X

Audience awareness X X X X X X

Access to authentic audience

X X X X X

Carry over X X X

Removed physical barriers X X

Increased opportunity for collaboration

X X X X X

Addressed multiple learning styles X

Voice for reluctant students

X X X

Ownership X X

Real-world application X X X

Opportunity for reflection

X X

168

Note. X = present in data for primary tool

Table 8

What is the Intent or Purpose for Using Blogs and/or Wikis?

Katie A place to share their learning

Mike Develop literacy skills and self-concept

RitaTo write in a more creative way and to review other concepts while increasing motivation for writing

Grant A place to correspond, collaborate, and communicate

Evan To have a virtual space

DonnaTo make the curriculum relevant to students’ lives and apply what research and experts have to say about writing and authentic audience

Jeff To take advantage of technology to pursue beliefs of cooperative learning

DavidTo create an audience for them to illustrate what they’ve learned in a meaningful way. To make their thinking transparent

Katie

Katie considered her class blog a place to share their learning. To establish a way

to share, students not only posted their work, they also made comments to and received

comments from the general audience. It was this access to an authentic audience that also

increased both the motivation and the desire to write for Katie’s students and provided an

increased opportunity for collaboration. Through this collaboration with other schools,

like the ones from New Zealand and Australia, student learning increased. “We’ve been

able to learn about things that otherwise we wouldn’t have.” These first graders often

wrote for their university blogging buddies, and always received return comments. Katie

felt this real-world application gave her students a sense of being an author. “They feel

169

like they’re writers, because not only are people reading it, but they’re commenting on it

as well.”

Mike

Mike used his class blog as an aid to develop student self-concept and a way to

work on the literacy skills of his ELL students. He knew his students were already moti-

vated by technology. He only saw this motivation increase as the blog was published.

“They’ll sit there and read that (the blog) before they read a book.” Making comments on

the blog was just a way to offer increased opportunities to write; another literacy skill.

According to Mike, this writing was impacted by the fact students were aware of an

outside audience and knew anyone could see their work.

Rita

Rita’s blogging class was a means for her to improve upon their writing curricu-

lum, at the same time applying concepts from other content areas. She wanted to provide

students with a more creative way to write and hoped this would in turn increase their

motivation and enthusiasm for writing. Motivation was a definite outcome from using

blogs. Rita attributed increased learning and performance to her students’ motivation. “I

feel sometimes the work I get out of them is better because they’re more interested, and

they’re more motivated to show what they know.” Fully aware they had an audience that

could not only read their work but also provide comments, gave them a sense of owner-

ship and proved to be inspiring; even for the more reserved students who were reluctant

to perform in the regular classroom. Rita also believed audience comments gave students

the opportunity for reflection; a chance to consider the thoughts and ideas of others in

170

relation to their own. Katie believed the ability of blogs to apply writing to real-world

situations was the key to the success of this tool.

Grant

Grant considered blogs to be a natural way to provide students with an oppor-

tunity to correspond, collaborate, and communicate with one another and people from all

around. Awareness of this impressive audience was very motivating for Grant’s students.

“I think it’s really powerful to give kids an audience for their work.” Grant attributed the

power of having an authentic audience for increasing his students’ desire to write.

Evan

Evan’s main intent was to establish a virtual space where he could have students

from different classes interacting. As a virtual space, blogs also removed any barriers of

time and space and extended collaboration beyond the classroom. If students wanted to

post a comment about something they read, they did not have to wait until a specific time

on a specific day or even risk forgetting the thought altogether. Evan felt immediate

availability to a virtual space increased the quality of the students’ work and the class

discussions.

Access to an authentic audience was a direct outcome of using a blog as a virtual

space. Receiving comments from different people in different locations was very

motivating for students and increased their desire to write better and increased the quality

of their writing.

Before we had blogs…I don’t think it was really critiqued as much. I probably didn’t do as much of a quality job of giving feedback...It wasn’t being read the

171

same. It wasn’t being discussed the same. It’s a lot richer type of writing now than it would have been before.

In fact, Evan thought they might be writing more because there was so much less

paperwork for him with the digital format of a blog. An increased opportunity to write

was seen as way to increase the potential for communication.

Donna

The research Donna read indicated students wrote better when they knew some-

one other than the classroom teacher would read their work. This was a primary reason

Donna chose to use a blog. Since Donna had done this same activity previously with

paper and pencil, she was able to make some acute comparisons. Donna saw an improve-

ment in student writing, especially in the area of making and supporting arguments. She

attributed this to the availability of an authentic audience, even though it was only an

audience of their peers. Having access to the thoughts and ideas of their peers carried

over into class and made for more interesting discussions.

Jeff

Cooperative learning is the foundation for Jeff’s teaching. Using a wiki was a

means for his students to create collaborative content, a natural way to increase the poten-

tial for collaboration. Working in small groups also increased accountability as student

performance was judged on a group not an individual basis. As students worked to create

collaborative content, requiring a high level of negotiation, the idea of working back and

forth to come to a consensus, was necessary. Jeff considered this a vital skill, and indicated

he saw an improvement in their literary analysis. Like Donna, the audience was limited to

other students in the school. This did not decrease the authenticity of the audience,

172

however, as Jeff’s students prepared a product to be used by that same audience. “Now the

audience becomes a little more real, and there’s a little bit more of a vested interest.”

Summary

Many studies have investigated the impact of audience on student writing (Bos &

Krajcik, 1998; Kulik, 2003a; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Reed, 1996). Throughout this

study, audience was found to be a significant theme. It first appeared as a participant’s

intent to use a blog or a wiki and later appeared as a factor for each research question.

Teachers chose to use these tools because they offered students access to an authentic

audience. Not all the participants used a public host. In the end, two chose to keep their

sites password protected. Yet these two still believed access to an audience was an

important component of blogs and/or wikis. Several participants used the fact the

students’ work was available to anyone who chose to look as leverage for their students

to write carefully with proper conventions.

Limitations

This study looked at a small pool of eight participants. Limited contact was made

with these participants in the form of two or three interview sessions and brief email

clarifications. While an attempt was made to select participants that represented a wide

range of grade levels, these eight participants may not be a typical representation of

teachers who currently use blogs or wikis with students. Furthermore, experience with

technology may be a consideration as several of the participants were recognized for their

use of technology and also presented at conferences.

In addition to human factors, physical equipment must also be considered. When

examining technology for instructional purposes, many factors such as availability and

173

reliability of equipment can influence a teacher’s use of technology. None of the

participants indicated this was an issue for them, but it cannot be said that the conditions

were equal. These case studies may offer depth in description, but the findings are

intended to be suggestive and should not be generalized.

Further research on a larger scale is required. This study only analyzed the use of

blogs and wikis from the perspective of the teachers. These perceptions and interpreta-

tions may not be the same as those of the students using the tools. A more thorough study

of all parties involved would provide a clearer understanding of how these tools are used

for instructional purposes and the impact they may have on students. It may also be

informative to study the effect blogs may have on mentoring. What impact would a tool

that was available on demand and removed any limitation of distance have on the process

of mentoring? This is a question worth investigation.

Conclusions

Audience

This study analyzed the stories of eight K-12 teachers, and how they used blogs

and/or wikis in the classroom. For these participants, establishing an audience for student

work played a significant role in the intent and design for the use of blogs or wikis. Every

participant chose to use a blog or wiki to provide an audience for his or her students other

than that of the teacher, because they understood the significance of writing for an

audience. In some cases, the audience was internal; work was only accessible by students,

parents and teachers. While this may appear to be limiting, Oelz (1989) and Zemelman,

Daniels, and Hyde (2005) suggested students can learn from one another when they are

able to share their published writing.

174

The remaining participants permitted their student’s work to be viewable by any

World Wide Web visitor. For some, the public Internet environment was enough to

constitute an authentic audience. Others were not willing to wait for someone to stumble

upon their blog. They solicited an audience for their students. Some found other class

blogs and worked out a partnership to have students exchange comments. Content area

experts and university students were also invited to serve as mentors, creating a specific

audience for student writing. Participants who had professional blogs also wrote about

their students’ work and invited visitors to participate in special projects such as Evan’s

book blog. All these efforts were directed towards ensuring that students had a constant

authentic audience.

Publishing student work in a newspaper, magazine, or journal can also provide an

audience for student work, but it is a passive audience; one that reads, perhaps admires or

questions, but cannot address the author. Here in lies the power of a blog; the ability to

receive comments directly from the reader. The audience can now interact directly with

the writer. Students receive feedback on their writing, giving them cause to consider a

different perspective, perhaps multiple perspectives, as they reflect on their original

writing. As students read and respond to comments, an active dialogue is established

creating an open forum for the construction of knowledge (Gay, Sturgill, Martin, &

Huttenlocher, 1999, Conceptual context section, ¶ 1). It is important to note that every

teacher approved all comments before they were publicly posted.

Commenting

Many remarks were made by the participants regarding the enthusiasm and

motivation displayed by the students when they received a comment on their blog. Katie

175

said, “They feel like they’re writers, because not only are people reading it, but they’re

also commenting on it as well.” These first-grade students were experiencing the writing

process as true authors. Grant saw comments as the catalyst for an increase in the desire

to write. “There’s a palpable sense with some in my class that they want to write and post

to the website because others will read it, see it, and comment back.” It is important to

note that the five teachers who made student work available to a global audience

indicated an increase in student motivation occurred. The two participants who kept work

for internal viewing only, did not see any changes.

Just as the concept of an authentic audience varied, so did the use of comments.

Depending on how the blog was structured, students could only make comments on the

blog, one-way commenting, or they could make and receive comments, two-way

commenting. One-way commenting was typically used when students did not have their

own personal blog. Students would respond to a teacher’s prompt by posting a comment;

as in the case of Mike and Evan’s blog. This restricted the flow of conversation as

students could not receive direct personal audience feedback. By having a personal blog,

all comments went directly to the student regarding a specific piece of student writing or

post, making the conversation between student and reader more fluent and direct. For

these students, it was as if it was an expected conversation. To speak, writing a post,

would be caught by a waiting ear, and in time a response would return in the form of a

comment; as natural an expectation as speaking face-to-face.

Comments have the potential to scaffold student learning (Ferdig & Trammell,

2004) by facilitating an environment where students can revisit and revise their thoughts

and ideas based on the input received from an outside audience member (Krajcik,

176

Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994). A comment such as, “I agree” may be

complimentary, but it encourages little, if any, reflection on the part of the writer. Writing

effective comments is an acquired skill that comes through practice. Participants handled

this matter in two distinct manners. Rita and Grant chose to directly instruct their students

on effective commenting techniques. Katie and David chose to use mentors to achieve the

same purpose. The remaining participants did not indicate they addressed effective

commenting with their students, nor was evidence of such found on their blogs.

Mentoring, an ideal implementation of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Develop-

ment principles, was used by both Katie and David to facilitate student learning. Mentors

for the first grade students as well as those for high school mathematics students focused

on a content area. David considered the student as a learner, not just a student of mathe-

matics as he used a mentor to help students focus and reflect on their thinking as well.

She also mentored my students on their blog; pushing their thinking and challenging them on what they were writing. Linda’s not a math specialist. So she kind of focuses on motivational stuff; the quality of learning; encouraging them to reflect more on what they’ve been asked. Nancy and Warren try to get them to dig more into the content; really justify what they’re saying and make it really clear. So it’s not just my eyes that look at their work. The kids see that because other people can then leave those comments. That’s another part towards encouraging them toward metacognition; reflecting upon where they are in their learning; trying to get better at it.

These experts from Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan, along with student teachers from a

university, conversed, exchanged and revised ideas, deepened understandings, and

created knowledge with students from another country; all made possible by commenting

on a class blog.

Student Writing

177

The connection between writing and the use of blogs or wikis was clearly evident.

Every participant chose to use a blog or wiki in order to provide their students with

access to an authentic audience. Every participant did this with the intention of

influencing student writing, except for one. David did not. David indicated that previous

to his use of blogs, he found writing to be contrived and artificial.

I hated it. I thought it was such an artificial thing. It was so inauthentic. The whole idea of a math journal…Journals could be more or less; could be better or worse in the way that they’re done. But it was mostly, a lot of the talk around mathematics, it was strained.

While not David’s original intent for using blogs, blogging did impact his students’

writing.

With blogs, it’s just a very natural way to express yourself. What my kids are writing, they’re writing about the content, what they learned in class that day…So by having to blog about it on a regular basis, using the language, using the terminology, and articulating it well enough for an interested learner to learn it as well; that’s authentic. That’s real. When I started, I didn’t do this to bring writing into the mathematics’ classroom. That’s not why I started doing it. That’s been a corollary consequence. It’s not been the main focus. The main focus is learning the mathematics and articulating what you’ve learned.

Blogs are about the conversation between the writer and the audience. A wiki is

about working together to create a collaborative piece of work. Despite the appearance of

a wiki’s limited audience input, the process of coming to a consensus in order to create a

unified piece of writing requires a great deal of reflection and revision, not just of words

on paper, but ideas, thoughts, and understandings as well. This process plays perfectly

into Jeff’s pedagogical beliefs about cooperative learning.

Intent

Teachers often have the choice whether or not to use technology when they

design learning activities. What is it the trigger, the hook, the impetus that brings a

178

teacher to make that choice? Evidence from this study suggested that the participants’

intent for using a blog or wiki was in accord with the process used to determine when to

use technology for instructional purposes along with their pedagogical beliefs. This adds

a deeper complexity to previous knowledge about the influence of pedagogical beliefs on

the instructional use of technology.

Blogs and wikis can potentially offer multiple benefits for students; among them

are accesses to an authentic audience, increased student motivation, an increased desire to

write, an increased opportunity to write, and a venue for collaboration. As Jeff stated, it is

not a matter of “if you build it, they will come and all will be bright and rosy.” Merely

using these tools does not guarantee benefits to students. It is more like a symphonic

concert. A concert, of course, has musicians and an audience; but it must begin with a

composer. The composer is the designer who determines the style of the music, how the

piece will ultimately sound, at what tempo it will move, and how the solo instrumentation

and accompaniment will meld and compliment one another. All the pieces must work in

concert to create a symphony. In this case, blogs and wikis serve as the instruments.

Students play them for the audience. Without a well written score from the composer-

teacher, students will simply play notes, not music.

This study has shown blogs have the ability to stimulate and motivate students to

write. That is only a beginning step. Now it is incumbent upon the instructor to design

activities that are open-ended, involve defining and solving real-world problems in order

to engage higher levels of thinking and increase opportunities to construct knowledge.

The tools are that are here today, like blogs and wikis, will continue to change. However,

179

the tool is only a device. The intent for the use of the tool is the key not only to how that

tool impacts students and student learning, but the degree of impact as well.

Implications

This study did contribute to the current knowledge base of how blogs and wikis

are used for instructional purposes with K-12 students. The results revealed a teacher’s

pedagogical beliefs, as well as the determination to use technology as an instructional

tool, influenced the intent to use blogs or wikis. Other factors such as audience

interaction, commenting options, and increased motivation were also influenced by a

participant’s intent to use technology. Awareness of this connection can help in the

preparation of both pre-service and in-service teachers.

As the monetary investment for technology continues to escalate, knowledge of a

teacher's pedagogical beliefs can assist technology trainers to better assess professional

development needs and assist teachers in designing student learning opportunities that are

more aligned with their pedagogical beliefs (Zhao et al., 2001). This may not only better

prepare teachers to use blogs and wikis for instructional purposes and promote the use of

these tools with students, but it may also help to alleviate some resistance that exists

towards using technology in the classroom.

The ability to articulate one's pedagogical beliefs can also impact pre-service

teachers. Teacher educators can assist pre-service teachers as they define, analyze and

reflect on their beliefs about teaching, learning, and the determination to use technology.

This will be extremely important for today’s university students, as they are often huge

180

technology consumers and producers on a personal level. Despite this familiarity with

technology, they need to learn about technology’s instructional uses and the impact their

beliefs have on the design of student technology-based activities.

Instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of learning and/or cognition; effective design is possible only if the developer has developed reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design. (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1992, p. 19)

A personal awareness of one's pedagogical beliefs can directly impact the design

of instructional technology activities for student instruction as shown in this study. This

harmony between the intent of the activity and the philosophy of the instructor was also

shown to have a positive bearing on the desire to use the activity with future classes.

Being cognizant of one's personal beliefs can enable more informed decisions on the

design of technology activities which can in turn lead to more productive and sustained

use.

Final Thoughts

Salomon (2000) talks of a “horse race approach” to research technology use in

education; “who runs faster, who arrives first…pitting one medium against another”

(Disappointments and their reasons III section, ¶ 1) as a means to determine which

technology provides the best outcomes. The race to see which approach comes out on top

only reinforces the concept that technology is the deciding factor. According to Salomon,

it is not the technology alone that makes the difference. It is how it is used.

Perhaps the words of Donald Leu (2000) can best explain the importance of the

findings from this study suggesting a connection between the teacher’s intent to use blogs

and wikis, the determination to use technology, and her pedagogical beliefs.

181

Technology and the literacies they prompt are changing so quickly that their importance to our children’s future is often clear before a consistent body of research evidence appears objectively demonstrating their efficacy… Research might be better spent exploring issues of how to support teachers’ efforts to unlock the potentials of new technologies, not demonstrating the learning gains from technologies we already know will be important to our children’s success at life’s opportunities. If technologies continually change in the years ahead, it may become increasingly important to study teachers’ envisionments of these technologies for literacy and learning. Teachers’ envisionments, in a time of rapid technological change, may be one of the more stable components of literacy education in the future. (p. 762)

Whether blogs and wikis morph into something new or disappear completely will

not matter in the long run. What will matter is how teachers intend to use tomorrow’s

technological tools to orchestrate student opportunities to participate in the concert of

learning.

REFERENCES

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 444-449.

Akyalcin, J. (1997). Constructivism: An epistemological journey from Piaget to Papert. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://web.archive.org/web/ 20000608200332/http://www.kilvington.schnet.edu.au/construct.htm

Alber, S. R. (1999). Focus on mainstreaming: "I don't like to write, but I love to get published": Using a classroom newspaper to motivate reluctant writers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(4), 355-360.

Alpay, E. (2003). The contribution of Vygotsky's theory to our understanding of the relation between the social world and cognitive development. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://www.ic.ac.uk/chemicalengineering/common_room/ files/PsychEd_5.pdf

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/ documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Applebee, A. N. (1977). Writing across the curriculum: The London projects. The English Journal, 66(9), 81-85.

Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2000). Constructivism in theory and practice: toward a better understanding. The High School Journal, 84(2), 35-53.

Augar, N., Raitman, R., & Wanlei, Z. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis. Paper presented at the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth.

Ba, H., Tally, W., & Tsikalas, K. (2002). Investigating children's emerging digital literacies. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.jtla.org

Baker, E. A., & Kinzer, C. K. (1998). Effects of technology on process writing: Are they all good? In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

183

Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.

Beck, N., & Fetherston, T. (2003). The effects of incorporating a word processor into a year three writing program. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 139-161.

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Blood, R. (2000). Weblogs: A history and perspective. In J. Rodzville (Ed.), We've got blog: How weblogs are changing our culture. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Blood, R. (2002). Weblogs: A history and perspective. In J. Rodzvilla (Ed.), We've got blog (pp. 7-16). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Boiarsky, C. (1991). Fluency, fluidity, and word processing. Journal of Advanced Composition, 11(1), 123-133.

Boling, E. C. (2005a, June 29). Preparing teachers to integrate technology in literacy instruction. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Boling, E. C. (2005b, June 29). Preparing teaches to integrate technology for literacy instruction. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Borja, R. R. (2005). 'Blogs' catching on as tool for instruction. Education Week, 25(15), 1-17.

Bos, N., & Krajcik, J. (1998, April 13). Students' awareness of audience in web-published science writing. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Bradley, V. N. (1982). Improving students' writing with microcomputers. Language Arts, 59(7), 732-743.

184

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brecia, W. F., & Miller, M. T. (2005). What's it worth? The perceived benefits of instructional blogging. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 44-52. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/Brescia.pdf

Brooks-Young, S. (2005). Writing for an audience: Use blogs to expand your students' horizons. Today's Catholic Teacher, 39(2), 10-13.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brown, J., Bryan, J., & Brown, T. (2005). Twenty-first century literacy and technology in K-8 classrooms. Innovate, 1. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://innovateonline.info/print.php?view=pdf&id=17

Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers. Computers and the Humanities, 24, 49-65.

Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work?: Employers' perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century workforce. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/BED-06-Workforce.pdf

Chapman, M. (2006). Research in writing, preschool through elementary, 1984-2003. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 6, 7-27.

Cobb, P. (2005). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cognitive constructivist perspectives. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (pp. 39-57). New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 107-155.

Cochran-Smith, M., Kahn, J., & Paris, C. L. (1990). Writing with a felicitous tool. Theory into Practice, 29(4), 235-245.

Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students' writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159.

Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Making connections: Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student learning. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 44-46.

185

Cooper, D. J. (1997). Literacy: Helping children construct meaning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Corio, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Reading Teacher, 56. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org/ electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/2-03_column/index.html

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Education.

D'Arcy, P. (1987). Writing to learn. In T. Fulwiler (Ed.), The Journal Book (pp. 41-46). Portsmouth, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Daiute, C. (1983). The computer as stylus and audience. College Composition and Communication, 34(2), 134-145.

Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(2), 141-159.

Danielson, L. (2000). The improvement of student writing: What the research says. Journal of School Improvement, 1. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.ncacasi.org/jsi/2000v1i1/improvement

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems and possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409-428.

Desilets, A., & Paquet, S. (2005). Wiki as a tool for web-based collaborative story telling in primary school: A case study. Paper presented at the EdMedia 2005, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, &Telecommunications, Montreal.

Dickinson, D. K. (1986). Cooperation, collaboration, and a computer: Integrating a computer into a first-second grade writing program. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 357-378.

Downes, S. (2004). Educational Blogging. Educause Review, 39(5), 14-26.

Drexler, W., Dawson, K., & Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Collaborative blogging as a means to develop elementary expository writing skills. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 6, 140-160. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume6/Drexler.pdf

Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2007a). Learning with Weblogs: An empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(1), 1-16.

186

Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2007b). Learning with weblogs: Enhancing cognitive and social knowledge construction. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(1), 1-16.

Duffy, P., & Bruns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A conversation of Possibilities. Paper presented at the Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006, Brisbane.

Dybahl, C. S., Shaw, D. G., & Blahous, E. (1997). The impact of computer on writing: No simple answers. Computers in the Schools, 13(3/4), 41-53.

Evans, P. (2006). The wiki factor. BizEd, 5(2), 28-32.

Farmer, J. (2003). The potential of personal publishing in education III: Where to now? Retrieved September 19, 2007, from http://www.xplanazine.com/archives/2003/10/incorporated_su_5.php

Feldman, S. (2001). The link, and how we think: Using hypertext as a teaching & learning tool. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(2), 153-158.

Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D. (2004). Content delivery in the 'blogoshpere' THE Journal, 31(7), 12, 16-17, 20.

Ferris, S. P., & Wilder, H. (2006). Uses and potentials of wikis in the classroom. Innovate, 2. Retrieved September 12, 2007, from http://www.innovateonline.info/print.php?view=pdf&id=258

Fiedler, S. (2004). Introducing disruptive technologies for learning: Personal web publishing with weblogs. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://web.archive.org/web/20061231122016/http://static.cognitivearchitects.com/gems/Seblogging/EdMediaSymposium.pdf

Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the classroom: Exploring online publication and learning. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.

Fosnot, C. T. (2005a). Constructivism revisited: Implications and reflections. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 276-291). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (2005b). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (Second ed.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

187

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717-732.

Fulwiler, T. (Ed.). (1987). The Journal Book. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Gay, G., Sturgill, A., Martin, W., & Huttenlocher, D. (1999). Document-centered peer collaborations: An exploration of the educational uses of networked communica-tion technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue3/gay.html#Discussion

Gibson, S. (2006). Using a wiki: A textbook case. Retrieved November 3, 2007, from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2061136,00.asp

Gilbert, C., Goldstein, S., Jacobs, G. M., & Winn-Bell Olsen, J. (1997). Six questions and 58 answers about using cooperative learning. ThaiTESOL Bulletin, 10, 16-24. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from http://www.georgejacobs.net/6_Questions_and_58_Answers.htm

Gillmor, D. (2005). The read-write web. We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people Retrieved June 26, 2007, from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch02.pdf

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1991). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Goddard, M. (2002). What Do We Do with These Computers? Reflections on Technology in the Classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 19-26.

Godwin-Jones, B. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12-16.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 1-51. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol2/1/

Goodwin-Jones, B. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 12-16. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/emerging/default.html

Grejda, G. F., & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Effects of word processing on sixth graders' holistic writing and revisions. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 144.

188

Hackmann, D. G. (2004). Constructivism and block scheduling: Making the connection. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 697-702.

Hagood, M. C., Stevens, L. P., & Reinking, D. (2002). What do they have to teach us? Talkin' 'cross generations! In D. E. Alverman (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 68-83). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2002). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R. A. Reiser (Ed.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 70-82). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Harris, M. (1992). Collaboration is not collaboration is not collaboration: Writing center tutorials vs. peer-response groups. College Composition and Communication, 43(3), 369-383.

Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C. M., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., et al. (1995). Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of network technologies. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication (pp. 47-78). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.

Hawisher, G. E. (1987). The effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college freshman. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 145-189.

Hawisher, G. E. (1988). Research update: Writing and word processing. Computers and Composition, 5(2), 7.

Hawkins, J., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., & Berger, C. (1982). Microcomputers in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361-373.

Heap, J. L. (1989). Writing as social action. Theory into Practice, 28(2), 148-153.

Hermann, A. W. (1990). Computers and writing research: Shifting our governing gaze. In D. H. Holdstein & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Honebein. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 11-24). Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Howard, L., & Monfils, G. (2007). Is chatspeak destroying English? Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(3), 8-9.

189

Huann, T. Y., John, O. E. G., & Yuen, J. M. (2005). Literature Review: Weblogs in education. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from http://www.moe.edu.sg/edumall/rd/litreview/weblogs_in_education.pdf

Huffaker, D. (2004). Spinning yarns around the digital fire: Storytelling and dialogue among youth on the Internet. Retrieved September 6, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_1/huffaker/index.html

Huffaker, D. (2005a). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91-98.

Huffaker, D. (2005b). Let them blog: Using weblogs to advance literacy in the K-12 classroom. In L. T. W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Literacy in technology at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 337-356). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Huijser, H. (2006). Refocusing multiliteracies for the net generation. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 2(1), 21-33.

Hunter, W. J., Jardine, G., Rilstone, P., & Weisgerber, R. (1990). The effects of using word processors: A hard look at the research. The Writing Notebook, 8(1), 42-46.

International Reading Association. (2002). Integrating literacy and technology in the curriculum. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/ps1048_technology.pdf

Jackowski-Bartol, T. (2001). The impact of word processing on middle school students. Unpublished master's thesis, Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, PA.

Jenkinson, E. B. (1988). Learning to write writing to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(10), 712-717.

Johnston, B. (1999). Theory and research: Audience, language use, and language learning. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 55-64). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivist learning. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 137-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

190

Jones, I. (1994). The effect of a word processor on the written composition of second-grade pupils. Computers in the Schools, 11(2), 43-54.

Juzwik, M. M., Crucic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., & Shankland, R. K. (2006). Writing into the 21st century: An overview of research on writing, 1999 to 2004. Written Communication, 23(4), 451-476.

Kahn, J. (1987). Learning to write with a new tool: Young children and word processing. The Computer Teacher, 14(9), 11-12, 56.

Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, D. P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 771-788). Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kantrov, I. (1991). Keeping promises and avoiding pitfalls: Where teaching needs to augment word processing. Computers and Composition, 8(2), 63-77.

Keetley, E. D. (1995). Comparison of first grade computer assisted and handwritten process story writing. Unpublished master's thesis, Johnson and Wales University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Kellner, D. (2000). New technologies/new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. Teaching Education, 11(3), 245-265.

Kelly, K. (1990). Computer-assisted writing instruction: A marriage of effective instruction and technology. Retrieved September 29, 2007, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/vol1no2/litrev/KarenKelly.pdf

Kennedy, K. (2003). Writing with web logs. Technology and Learning, 23(7), 11-14.

Kerka, S. (2002). Journal writing as an adult learning tool. Columbus, OH: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 470782).

Killion, J. (1999). Journaling. Journal of Staff Development, 20. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/killion203.cfm

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/SocialConstructivism.htm

King, F. B., & LaRocco, D. L. (2006). E-journaling: A strategy to support student reflection and understanding. Current Issues in Education, 9. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume9/number4/

191

Kinzer, C. K. (2003). The importance of recognizing the expanding boundaries of literacy. Reading Online, 6. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www. readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/kinzer/index.html

Klantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2001). 'Multiliteracies' a framework for action. In M. Klantzis & B. Cope (Eds.), Transformations in language and learning (pp. 19-31). Australia: Common Ground Publishing.

Knight, J. (2003). Crossing boundaries: What constructivist instruction can teach us about intensive-explicit instruction, and what intensive-explicit instruction can teach us about constructivist instruction. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://www.ku-crl.org/htmlfiles/SE2005/constructivist.rtf

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.

Krause, S. D. (2005). Blogs as a tool for teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(42), B33-B35.

Kreeft Peyton, J. (1997). Dialogue journals: Interactive writing to develop language and literacy. Emergency Librarian, 24(5), 46-47, 49.

Kulik, J. A. (2003a). Computer use helps students to develop better writing skills (Issue Brief No. P10446.001). Arlington, VA: SRI International.

Kulik, J. A. (2003b). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say (SRI Project No. P10446.001). Arlington, VA: SRI International.

Kurth, R. J. (1987). Using word processing to enhance revision strategies during student writing activities. Educational Technology, 27(1), 13-19.

Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wikis ready or not. Educause Review, 39(5), 36-48.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003, April 3). Do-it-yourself broadcasting: Writing weblogs in a knowledge society. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.

Larochelle, M., & Bednarz, N. (1998). Constructivism and education: Beyond epistemological correctness. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 3-20). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leu, D., & Corio, J. (2004). New literacies for new times: why and how the literacy community needs to rethink its mission. WSRA Journal, 44(5), 3-7.

192

Leu Jr., D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leu Jr., D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 108-127.

Leu Jr., D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Corio, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communica-tion technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Littrell, A. B. (2005). "My space": Using blogs as literature journals with adolescents. Unpublished dissertation, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville.

Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky's philosophy: Constructivism and its criticism examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-400.

Longhurst, J., & Sandage, S. A. (2004). Appropriate technology and journal writing. College Teaching, 52(2), 69-75.

Lowe, C., & Williams, T. (2004). Moving to the public: Weblogs in the writing classroom. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/moving_to_the_public.html

Luffman, T. (2001). Technology in the composition classroom: Blessing or curse? Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://web.archive.org/web/ 20041120215434/http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~tel4/eng519/tp-519-main.htm

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (2000). Literate futures: Report of the review for Queensland state schools. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://education.qld.gov.au/ curriculum/learning/literate-futures/pdfs/lf-teacher-summary.pdf

Lyons, H. K. (2002). The effects of technology use on student writing proficiency and student attitudes toward written assignments in a ninth grade language arts classroom. Unpublished Dissertation, Idaho State University, Pocatello.

Maddux, C. D., Johnson, D. L., & Willis, J. W. (2001). Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow's technologies (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

193

Mader, S. (2007). Wiki vs. blog. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://www.businessblogwire.com/2006/03/stewart_mader_wiki_vs_blog.html

Mahoney, M. J. (1991). Human change processes. New York: Basic Books.

Matthews, M. (1996). Vygotsky and writing: Children using language to learn and learning from the child's language what to teach. In L. Dixon-Krauss (Ed.), Vygotsky in the classroom (pp. 93-110). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Mayher, J. S., Lester, N. B., & Pradl, G. M. (1983). Learning to write/writing to learn. Portsmouth, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

McDowell, D. (2004). Use of wiki in the high school classroom. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.guhsd.net/mcdowell/visions/wiki-litreview.pdf

McIntyre, S. R., & Tlusty, R. H. (1995). Computer-mediated discourses: Electronic dialogue journaling and reflective practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role within constructivist classrooms. Menlo Park, CA: Sri International. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383283).

Medway, P. (1973). From talking to writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 177554).

Medway, P. (1987). Logs for learning: Writing in one English school. In T. Fulwiler (Ed.), The Journal Book (pp. 64-76). Portsmouth, NJ: Boyton/Cook Publishers.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Mitchell, A., Posner, I., & Baecker, R. (1995). Learning to write together using groupware. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://web.archive.org/web/20050408152716/http://www.kmdi.toronto.edu/rmb/papers/p14.pdf

Moeller, D. (2002). Computers in the writing classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Moore, K. C. (2004). Constructivism & metacognition. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle.html

194

Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism from philosophy to practice. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Writing highlights 2002. Retrieved 11/13/07, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ pdf/main2002/2003531.pdf

National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected "R". Retrieved October 23, 2007, from www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf

National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work...or a ticket out, a survey of business leaders. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/ writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf

National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2005). Writing: A powerful message from state government. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/powerful-message-from-state.pdf

National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2006). Writing and school reform. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.writingcommission. \org/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-school-reform-natl-comm-writing.pdf

NCTE Executive Committee. (2004). NCTE beliefs about the teaching of writing. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://www.ncte.org/prog/writing/research/ 118876.htm

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Education Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Ng, W. (2006). Web-based technologies, technology literacy, and learning. In L. T. W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy in technology at the K-12 level (pp. 94-117). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Nichols, L. M. (1996). Pencil and paper versus word processing: A comparative study of creative writing in the elementary school. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 159-166.

Null, J. W. (2004). Is constructivism traditional? Historical and practical perspectives on a popular advocacy. Educational Forum, The, 68(2), 180.

195

Oelz, N. G. (1989). All ears on the author. Reading Teacher, 42(7), 555.

Olssen, M. (1996). Radical constructivism and its failings: Anti-realism and individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(3), 275.

Oravec, J. (2003). Blending by blogging: Weblogs in blended learning initiatives. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 225-233.

Oravec, J. A. (2002). Bookmarking the world: Weblog applications in education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(7), 616-621.

Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (1997). Word processors and children's writing in a high-computer-access setting. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 202-220.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance, and teacher education. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 35-66.

Padgett, A. L. (2000). Journal writing in the elementary school: Word Processing vs. paper and pencil. Unpublished Masters of Arts in Educational Technology and Bible, Johnson Bible College, Knoxville, TN.

Palmeri, J., & Daum, S. (2001). Fending for themselves: A student-directed model of peer response writing groups. In E. J. Isaacs & P. Jackson (Eds.), Public works: Student writing as public text (pp. 78-86). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3(1), 57-72.

Parkinson, D. (2004). The double-dialectic and lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(5), 475-485.

Pearson, H., & Wilkinson, A. (1986). The use of the word processor in assisting children's writing development. Educational Review, 38(2), 169-187.

Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers' beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57-76.

Penrod, D. (2007). Using blogs to enhance literacy: The next powerful step in 21st-century learning. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Perkins, D. (1992). What constructivism demands of the learner. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 161-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

196

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Phipps, J. J. (2005). E-journaling: Achieving interactive education online. Educause Quarterly, 28. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm05/eqm0519.asp?print=yes

Polly, D. (2007). Blogs: Turning technology-driven social fads into an educational tool. VSTE Journal, 21, 1-7. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.vste.org/publications/journal/attach/vj_2007/vj_2007_04.pdf

Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 215-225.

Quinn, D., Duff, A., Johnston, H., & Gursansky, D. (2007, July). Blogging: Infusing engagement, enjoyment (joy) and reflection into learning. Paper presented at the HERDSA 2007 - Enhancing Higher Education Theory and Scholarship, Adelaide, South Australia,.

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.

Rakes, G. C., Flowers, B. F., Casey, H. B., & Santana, R. (1999). An analysis of instructional technology use and constructivist behaviors in K-12 teachers. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1-18.

Reed, W. M. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based writing instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 418-437.

Regina Public Schools, & Saskatchewan Learning. (2004). Constructivism: Knowledge building in the secondary classroom. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://wblrd.sk.ca/~consthighkm/what/philosophy.html

Reinhold, S. (2006). WikiTrails: Augmenting wiki structure for collaborative, interdisciplinary learning. Paper presented at the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, Odense, Denmark.

Reither, J. A., & Vipond, D. (1989). Writing as collaboration. College English, 51(8), 855-867.

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.

Richardson, W. (2003). Web logs in the English classroom: More than just cchat. English Journal, 93(1), 39.

197

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rodrigues, D., & Rodrigues, R. (1989). How word processing is changing our teaching: New technologies, new approaches, new challenges. Computers and Composition, 7(1), 13-25.

Ross, K. (2007). Teachers say text messages r ruining kids' riting skills. American Teacher, 92(3), 4.

Roussin, J. (2008). Readers respond: Is chatspeak destroying English? Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(5), 6.

Sade, G. (2005). Weblogs as open constructive learning environments. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://incsub.org/blogtalk/images/bog_talk_gsade_v71.doc

Salomon, G. (2000). It's not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://web.archive.org/web/ 20041204215511/http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~gsalomon/edMedia2000.html

Savenye, W. C., & Robinson, R. S. (2004). Qualitative research issues and methods: An introduction for educational technologists. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 1171-1195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(1), 31-38.

Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Buerger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W., & Schaffert, S. (2006). Learning with semantic wikis,. Paper presented at the First Workshop on Semantic Wikis--From Wiki to Semantics (SemWiki2006), Buvda, Montenegro. Retrieved November 2, 2007. from http://www.wastl.net/download/paper/Schaffert06_SemWikiLearning.pdf

Scheepers, D. (2000). Learning with Computers. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http:// hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/2000/scheepers_md/projects/loo/theory/theories.html

Seitzinger, J. (2006). Be constructive: Blogs, podcasts, and wikis as constructivist learning tools. Learning Solutions eMagazine, 1-13. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/073106DES.pdf

Sevelj, M. (2006). Weblogs as dynamic learning spaces. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from http://seeking.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/DEANZ_blog_paper.pdf

198

Shortis, T. (2007). Gr8 txtpectations: The creativity of text spelling. English Drama Media, 8, 21-26.

Simic, M. (1994). Computer assisted writing instruction. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376474).

Simon, S. D. (1999). From Neo-behaviorism to social constructivism: The paradigmatic non-evolution of Albert Bandura. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/simon.doc

Snyder, I. (1993). Writing with word processors: A research overview. Educational Research, 35(1), 49-69.

Sommers, E. A., & Collins, J. L. (1984). What research tells us about composing and computing. Buffalo, NY: Computer Educators League. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 249497).

Spitzer, M. (1990). Local and global networking: Implications for the future. In D. H. Holdsetin & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999). Constructivism in the classroom: If I teach this way, am I doing my job? Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(1), 6-17.

Staton, J. (1982). Dialogue journals in the classroom context. In J. Staton, R. W. Shuy, J. K. Peyton & L. Reed (Eds.), Dialogue journal communication: Classroom, linguistic, social, and cognitive views. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing

Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Storybook Weaver Deluxe. (1994). [Computer software]. San Francisco, CA: The Learning Company (MECC).

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tudge, J. R., & Winterhoff, P. A. (1994). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development, 36(2), 61-81.

Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

199

Utecht, J. (2007). Blogs aren't the enemy: How blogs enhance learning. Technology & Learning, 27(9), 32-34.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The Invented Reality: How do we believe what we know?: Contributions to Constructivism (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, C., & Turner, D. (2004). Extending the wiki paradigm for use in the classroom. Paper presented at the ITCC 2004: International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, Las Vegas.

Wang, M., Fix, R., & Bock, L. (2005). Blogs: Useful tool or vain indulgence? Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Vancouver.

Wang, Y. (1993). E-mail dialogue journaling in an ESL reading and writing classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Ward, J. M. (2004). Blog assisted language learning (BALL): Push button publishing for students. TEFL Web Journal, 3(1), 1-16.

Warrick, W. R. (2004). Constructivism: Pre-historical to post-modern. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://mason.gmu.edu/~wwarrick/Portfolio/Products/PDF/constructivism.pdf

Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and writing. In C. Davidson & J. Cummins (Eds.), Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 1-13). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Weiler, G. (2003). Using Weblogs in the Classroom. The English Journal, 92(5), 73-75.

Wickstrom, C. D. (2003). A "funny" thing happened on the way to the forum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(5), 414-423.

Williams, J. B., & Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 232-247.

200

Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology research and development. Educational technology research and development, 47(4), 29-45.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.

Witte, S. (2007). "That's online writing, not boring school writing": Writing with blogs and the Talkback Project. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 92-96.

Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 184-201.

Wolsey, T. D. (2004). Literature discussion in cyberspace: Young adolescents using threaded discussion groups to talk about books. Reading Online, 7. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/wolsey/

Wrede, O. (2003). Weblogs and discourse: Weblogs as transformational technology for higher education and academic research, Blogtalk Conference. Vienna.

Yancey, K. B. (2004). Using multiple technologies to teach writing. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 38-40.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yoder, P. L. (2007). Shifting paradigms: assessment and technology in the composition classroom. Pedagogy, 7, 141-146. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://pedagogy.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/1/141.pdf

Young, A. (1994). The wonder of writing across the curriculum. Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 1. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://wac.colostate.edu/llad/v1n1/young.pdf

Zacharias, M. E. (1990). The relationship between journal writing in education and thinking processes: What educators say about it. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 327870).

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today's standards for teaching and learning in America's schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

201

Zhao, Y., Beyers, J., Mishra, P., Topper, A., Chen, H., Enfield, M., et al. (2001). What do they know? A comprehensive portrait of exemplary technology-using teachers. Journal of computing in teacher education, 17(2), 25-37.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.

APPENDIX A

CONSENT LETTER

201

202

My name is Rena Shifflet. I am a doctoral student at Illinois State University. I am conducting a qualitative research project in order to gain an understanding of the use of blogs and wikis with K-12 students. The results of this research project will be used as the basis of my dissertation in Curriculum and Instruction. I may also present the results in an academic venue or publish them in a professional journal.

I would like you to participate in this research. Your participation would include being interviewed one or two times for approximately forty minutes to an hour each time. I’ll ask you questions about your use of blogs and wikis. I would like to digitally record these interviews. The reason for recording is so that I can construct a verbatim transcript to use in analysis. I will delete the recording once I have completed the transcription process. I would also like to review any public student artifacts created as a result of using blogs and wikis.

The risks of participating in this are very low. There is a risk of loss of time to participate in the study and a risk of loss of privacy. To minimize the loss of privacy I will keep whatever information you provide confidential. The information you provide will not be identified by your name. I will use a pseudonym in the final report I construct. Only the researchers in this study will have access to the transcripts and notes. In the final research report I write, there may be some quotations from the interviews and some descriptions from my observations of student artifacts, but I will not use your real name and will protect your identity so that you will experience no adverse effects for your honesty in the interviews and your willingness to participate.

You may benefit from this research project as you reflect on your purpose and intent for using blogs and wikis with your students. You may also experience an extrinsic reward of advancing the knowledge of the instructional use of blogs and wikis for other educators. Your participation is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for deciding not to participate. Also, you are free to withdraw from participation at any time, for any reason, with no penalties of any sort.

If you have any questions about this research or your rights as a participant, please contact me Rena Shifflet, 309-829-5901, rashiff@ilstu.edu; my professor Dr. Cheri Toledo, 309-438-3490, catoled@ilstu.edu; or the Illinois State University Research and Ethics & Compliance, 309-438-8451

I have read and understand the statements above. Typing your name below is evidence that you consent to the use of your data in this study.

Name _____________________________________ Date __________________

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLE OF SCRIBE POST

203

204

Scribe: (DABC) Sine/Cosine; Relations and Modes of Representation

As your scribe for today, I will put my efforts into defining today's lesson. I hope that standards will be met and that this may be used to a greater extent as a future reference.

Today, we learned more about trig functions. We learned how to sketch the graphs, interpret the information, and undo our steps to either find equations from analyzing the graph or vice

versa. There were many things that we went over today, upon which I will try to re-explain.

Class 1: MorningTo start the class off, we put our thoughts into questions that were written on the board.

1.) On the same cartesian plane, using 2 different colours, sketch at least 2 cycles of:

f(x) = Cos(x) and g(x) = Sin(x)

As Mr. K stated during the class, graphing these functions are as easy as counting from 1-4. In this example, upon which the graph is in intervals of Π/2, you would label your scale as Π/2, Π, 3Π/2, and 2Π on the positive side of the x-axis. On the negative side of the x-axis, you would label the scale with the same values except that they are negative: -Π/2, -Π, -3Π/2, and -2Π.

There are things to remember when graphing in order to achieve full marks. Some of which are quite simple:

- label your axis- add arrows to your axis and your curves - **make certain that the curve arrows either point up or down, NOT STRAIGHT

Back to the question, there are things that you should notice about the function of Sin(x) and Cos(x).

- both "wrap" around a line, known as the "sinusoidal axis" or the "average value of the function"- Cosine starts at its max value

205

- Sine starts at its sinusoidal axisExploring further into the concept, we find that we can rewrite the function of Sin(x) in terms of Cosine, and rewrite the function of Cos(x) in terms of Sine.

Sin in terms of Cos:-> Cos(x- Π/2) = Sin(x)

Cos in terms of Sin:-> Sin(x+ Π/2) = Cos(x)

NOTE: Π/2 in both of these equations are the phase shift a long the horizontal axis, either left or right, depending on its sign, which will be discussed further on in this post.

2.) Without using a calculator, sketch each of the following graphs:

a.) y = Sin(x) - 1

b.) y = -2Sin(x)

Notice that the amplitude, in this case (2) is not negative because amplitudes are described as distances and therefore should not be negative.

c.) y = 2Sin(x) + 1

In graphing these functions, there are certain steps that may be followed to help make graphing easier also explained later in this post.

206

- - - - - - - - - -

-In general or standard form, the equation of sine functions are:

f(x) = ASinB(x-C) + D

-Cosine is affected by the same transformations:

f(x) = ACosB(x-C) + D

A- The value of A relates both to the amplitude and whether the function will be inverted or not over the y-axis. The amplitude (which is the absolute value of A: |A|) of the graph is the distance from the sinusoidal axis. Its sign influences whether the curve will "flip" over the y-axis or if it retains its normal position. Further explained later on.

B- Parameter B is not the period of the graph but helps determine the period. This is also explained further into the class.

C- The phase shift/ horizontal shift of the graph.

D- Parameter D is the sinusoidal axis, average value of the function, or the vertical shift.

- - - - - - - - - -

Now, having discovered the properties of the transformations, we dive deeper into the concept and talk about how these variables effect the graph and how graphing can be put into an easier form of remembering.

Ex. Sin2x the value of "B" causes "everything to happen twice as fast"

the angle is "doubled" before finding the value of sine

Ex. Sin-2x Inputs are made negative first

Note: x-coordinates are changing sign

Note: the negative signs do not flip the graph vertically over the x-axis but horizontally over the y-axis

**To help us improve our understanding of these examples, we compared them with Sin(x) on the same Cartesian plane.

207

Now diving even deeper with this new knowledge, we compare more examples to notice occurring patterns (mathematics is the study of patterns). We do this by observing sketches of functions.

Sinx = 1/2 <-- 1 wave between 0-2ΠSin2x = 1/2 <-- 2 waves between 0-2ΠSin3x = 1/2 <-- 3 waves between 0-2Π Sin4x = 1/2 <--4 waves between 0-2Π So, we find that the value of "B" is somehow related to the number of waves between a given interval (in this case 0-2Π). However, when the word "Period" comes to mind, people ask themselves, is the value of "B" in fact the period? The answer to that is no. "B" is in fact not the period of the graph, but indeed helps determine it.

A period is the distance of a hill and a wave.

Using this mode of representation, we can find the relationship between the value of "B" and the period.

Now discovering all of this in the first class of the day may be quite a load. However, one thing that should definitely not be forgotten is the concept of the mnemonic: DABC. At first, the abbreviation may look unfamiliar. However when you peer closer, you notice that A, B, C, and D, are part of the transformational equation of Sine and Cosine! DABC is actually that, except in the form of order upon which can be helpful in remembering how to sketch trig functions.

D - Is the first step in sketching the graph of a trig function. D is the vertical shift or sinusoidal axis of the graph and should be found first, as you should know that the graph "wraps" around the sinusoidal axis.

A - Is the second step in sketching the graph of a trig function. A is the amplitude and determines the stretch of the graph. Also important about the amplitude is its sign. If it is negative, the graph appears to be inverted; it flips horizontally over the y-axis. If positive, Sine graphs will start at zero, and Cosine graphs will start at its max value, which is one.

B - Is the third step in sketching the graph of a trig function. B represents a factor that influences the period of the graph. This is used to determine the scale values of the x-

208

axis.C - Last but not least, the last step in sketching the graph of a trig function. C represents the horizontal shift of the graph.

When thinking of graphing one of these monsters, you may curse in the form of DABC (pronounced: Dah - Bick!). Then all of a sudden, a flash of insight washes over you and you suddenly remember how to sketch the graph! Isn't that amazing everyone?

Finally, we reached the last couple minutes of a long class (or short?). Mr. K put up an example, which he ended up sketching quickly on the board:

y= -3Cos2(x - Π/4) + 1

For indication purposes, during the class, Mr. K compared graphing trig functions to the "etchisketch" which is quite the analogy. He stated that one dial of the etchisketch could be compared to Sin and the other dial could be compared to Cos. Imagine both of the dials being turned simultaneously and the result is quite frankly circular functions displayed in a graphical manner or atleast visual.

Class 2: AfternoonWe started off the afternoon by taking a look at these two previous equations:

f(x) = AsinB(x-C)+Df(x) = AcosB(x-C)+D

Discussing briefly about the two, we move quickly to an example.

209

Ex. y = -2sin3(x+Π/6)+1

Note: The vertical shift is to the left in this example. The positive sign is due to a negative value input replacing the variable C. Since the formula has a negative sign, and the example has a positive sign, the horizontal shift is to the left because a (-)(-) = (+).

Note: When solving this equation, for any reason, simply use the order of operations: BEDMAS

Now having graphed this function, Mr. K talked brought up a great topic. He said that, if you know how to do something one way in math, you should know how to undo it. So, that's what we ended up doing. Instead of converting the equation to a graphical mode of representation, we reversed the method and converted the graphs into symbolic modes of representation: in the form of an equation.

So you might ask, how do you do that? Well, we started off by find the values ABCD of the transformational equations of sine or cosine.

Note: For this one graph, there can be a large (when I say large, I mean LARGE) quantity of equations that when graphed, will all look similar or are exact replicates.

We decided to rewrite the equation in Cosine: A= -2

B= 3 (B= 2 Π/p = 2Π/2Π/3 = 3)

C= 0 (normal cosine curves start at its max, whiel this graph starts at its min due to the negative amplitude sign)

D= 1

210

By substituting the numbers back into the framework equation, we get:

y=-2cos3x+1

Next we decided to rewrite the equation 3 more times: 2 in terms of cosine, and 1 in terms of sine.

Sine A= 2 B= 3 C= Π/6 D= 1

y=2sin3(x-Π/6) + 1

Cosine1 A= 2 B= 3 C= -Π/3 D= 1

y=2cos3(x+Π/3) + 1

Cosine2 A= 2 B= 3 C= -Π/3 D= 1

y=2cos3(x+Π/3) + 1

After all those nice examples, we look at where the quadrants are located in the graph. To put it short, depending on where your starting point is, the period of the curve is divided by 4 pieces, quadrant 1, 2, 3, and 4 before repeating itself again.

After this, we quickly went over number 15 of exercise #5, and number 12 of exercise #6.

We are now DONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE the unit and our

211

pretest is on its way (supposedly thursday). Tomorrow, we are taking notes into our super duper "Math Dictionary of Power" (lol) and are going over any issues, concerns, and questions about the unit! Make sure to ask some questions or we'll just have wasted a class that could've been used towards our exam studying time near the end.

WOW THAT WAS A DOOZY. Now we near the end.

Any comments, suggestions, error fixing, criticism, appreciation, is accepted :)

Homework for tonight: Curve sketching posted by Mr. K (so far has not appeared)

Scribe for tomorrow: Bertman! (sorry Sam, Bert asked me first :P)

Have a nice day. Night.

Posted by Tim_MATH_y at 4:42 PM Labels: Circular Functions, Scribe, Tim_MATH_y

29 comments: aichelle s. said...

Good job Timmy, I really like your graphics and use of colour! Everything was very detailed. =)

Tim_MATH_y said...

thanks! =)

VincentR said...

Good job, Timmy! Way to go! This might have take a whole night of games?! haha. Anyway, very small amount of grammatical error and the fact that Mr. K. recommended not to use arabic values to indicate the quadrants. Use roman numerals instead. Overall, it rocks! HAHA! I'm just curious where you happened to construct those perfect graphs. It would hasten a lot of our fellow bloggers because they're easier to make instead of drawing them free-handedly. Good job again and see you tomorrow!

Tim_MATH_y said...

wows thanks man! lol i forgot about the roman numerals for quadrant numbering.. bah! well i got the idea from mr.k when i asked him how to make quick graphs. mr.k showed me the link on our blog called "Mathematics Archives" where mr.k dug through to find me a list of programs to use. i asked john about it and he

212

perscribed me graphmatica. i downloaded and used it :), with the help of john and richard to answer questions about it

Tim_MATH_y said... This post has been removed by the author.

Tim_MATH_y said...

http://archives.math.utk.edu/software/msdos/graphing/grmat/.html

Graphmatica, download windows version, its an excellent program.

Jojo Rocks said...

I'm speachless. Ver niice job. *claps*

Anonymous said...

;)

lol now i know about DABC

--sheep

SAMUS said...

SHEEP! you are here! i never see you on anymore. oh so lauressa isnt a big jello after all. haha. hi sheep =)

VincentR said...

I suggest Timmy's scribe post is inducted to the Hall of Fame because of the fact that the post entails every detail involved in yesterday's class. Not only that, he also clarified some confusing points. His images and text both contribute to the quality of the post.

Grey-M said...

I second Vincents motion to have this inducted into the H.o.F. because of the enormous amount detail this post contains. GJ Timmy.

Tim_MATH_y said...

wow awesome i got 2! ty

213

Kasiaw said...

I cast my vote that Tim-MATH-y's scribe post be inducted into the hall of fame because it was very detailed and the use of graphs was very helpfil.

e said...

Hello Mathy Tim!

I also think your post is great. I only now had a chance to read it and I don't know if I can vote, but I'd certainly vote for Hall of Fameness :) I still have to do my job, which is to ask questions.

1. What is the difference between:a) f(x)=2sin(3)x+5b) g(x)=2sin(3x)+5c) h(x)=2sin3x+5?

2. You said: "A- The amplitude of the graph is the distance from the sinusoidal axis. Its sign indicates whether the function will be inverted or not over the x-axis, further explained later on in the class."

Elsewhere in the post you said that A can not be negative as it describes the distance. Let's consider f(x)=-7sin(3x+pi/3)+2What are A, B, C and D in this example?

I'll wait for response and further discussion :)

e

aichelle s. said...

I also think this post should be inducted into the hall of fame because of the graphics, use of colour incorporated with in the post, and I find I can understand it.

Tim_MATH_y said...

WoW, great questions. I guess I should try to the best of my abilities to answer them for you.

1.) Well from the looks of these functions, and considering that this question seems quite difficult for me to explain, I do believe that they all seem quite similar, in respect to how they would be drawn on the same cartesian plane.

214

However, I believe there might be more of a twist to these examples.

a) f(x)=2sin(3)x+5b) g(x)=2sin(3x)+5c) h(x)=2sin3x+5?

2.) I was quite uncertain when pondering about this concept.

A= -7B= 3C= pi/9D= 2

f(x)=-7sin(3x+pi/3)+2f(x)=-7sin3(x+pi/9)+2

Now, taking this information in, I notice that my post has a minor error. The value of "A" is not the amplitude. However, the value of |A| is the amplitude, and I believe that is should answer your question.

Well correct me or discuss upon what you think about my thoughts. =)

Lani said...

Hi Tim Math y,

Congratulations on an examplary scribe!

Your detailed explanations and graphics contributed to the understanding of the content. In addition, you collaborated to reach this excellence, and your post generated such a great discussion.

I'd like to offer a "Hall of Fame" worthy!

Best,Lani

Tim_MATH_y said...

All I can do right now is:

=)

e said...

215

Hi Tim,

I like how you handled 2. I agree that we should allow A to be negative, and that its absolute value is the amplitude. Nice job.

Let's talk about 1. Here are the functions:

a) f(x)=2sin(3)x+5b) g(x)=2sin(3x)+5c) h(x)=2sin3x+5?

You remember discussion about input and output of functions with grey-m? That is what the differences above are all about. I can rewrite the functions so that it would be clearer:

a)f(x)=2sin(3)x+5 = 2*sin(3)*x+5 = = (2*sin(3))x+5,

so f is really just a linear function with slope 2sin(3) and y-intercept 5. See, here the input for sine is 3, not 3x (that's why there are parentheses there).

b)g(x)= 2sin(3x)+5

is what you wanted to have, a trig function with A=2, B=3, C=0 and D=5.

c)h(x)=2sin3x+5

I can't tell. I would say that it's same as f, but I think you wanted it to be same as g. It is in this case ambiguous as to what the input for the sine function is.

What do you think?

e said...

Tim,

One more thing. In 2. is C pi/9 or -pi/9?

I hope you're still smiling because you're doing an awesome job :)

e

Mr. K said...

216

Let me add my vote to make it 7 so far. ;-)

I think this post deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame not only for all the reasons people before me have mentioned, but also for the conversation that has evolved in the comments. The difference between y=sin(3)x and y=sin(3x) and the ambiguity in expressions like y=sin3x may seem small but are quite significant. As e has pointed out, one is a line and the other is a wave the last is ...? Very different functions.

You've heard me say "learning is a conversation" ... this is a real learning conversation. Keep it up! ;-)

Tim_MATH_y said...

Haha!

Well, for starters, I knew there was a twist with those examples! Especially example(a) of question 1 because I actually graphed all three of the functions and found that it was linear. That put quite the suspicion in my mind but I did not quite know how to explain what I was seeing.

Thank you for pointing out the differences of the three examples, It definitely filled some gaps.

Now for number 2.. hrm.. I think that you are trying to hint upon something about this question.

Trusting my thoughts, I believe that.. OH! FLASH OF INSIGHT! yes C= -pi/9 since the example shows: x+pi/9 and the equation is x(MINUS)C.

Therefore, (-)(-) cancel out to give + result!

Yes, C= -pi/9.. bah how'd I mess up to start.. :P

Ricky said...

Oh, I totally forgot to vote tim-math-y's scibe into the hall of fame. Ok I formally want to vote tim-math-y's scribe into the hall of fame because of his excellent details on solving each and every question and his excellent visuals and finally for his rational to be able to do the scribe while avoiding video games. Excellent Work Tim-Math-Y

«Craig» said...

217

Well, I would have to say HALL OF FAME!!! I really got to experience the full use of the Scribe Post. I was not present for this class, but I really felt I was "there" after reading this scribe. The explanations were so detailed and were exactly how I think Mr. K. would present them. The graphics were stunning and the work was displayed nicely. Plus it was about as long as a Math class anyways. LOL

«Craig» said...

Wow, I just counted, Tim-Math-y is in the 'Scribe Hall of Fame' with 9 votes!!!

e said...

You graphed the functions I gave you? Nice job, I wouldn't have thought to do that. I learned something, too. Use technology more often :) But I am definitely glad that you wanted an explanation, too! We'll talk more, I'm sure.

Tim_MATH_y said...

Nice! Thank you all for voting my scribe post into the Hall of Fame! (Hononored). Wow, 26 comments! Awesome!

=)

Kina said...

Hey! I don't know why you have made this blog thing, but I'm a trigonometry student and the way my teacher tries to teach us trig just is NOT working. And i googled some of it to get some definitions and your blog just made EVERYTHING click. GAH thank you SO much, sosososo much. This is amazing and I'm going to ace my next test cuz of you.

Tim_MATH_y said...

Wow! I don't know much to say! I'm glad that my scribe post has really enriched your knowledge of trig!

Knowing that my scribe post has helped someone like you really makes me feel great =). Thanks!

Goodluck on your test!

APPENDIX C

CLASS SURVEY FOR DAVID’S MATHEMATICS CLASS

218

219

Class Survey from David’s Mathematics Class

BITTERSWEET

I'm sure everyone is thinking the same thing, "Math is FINALLY done! OH YEAH!" that's great and all but when you stop to think about it, math was really fun. I really had fun in that class, I can honestly say that it's the best class I've had ever. Math was actually fun because I had my friends and everyone else there was friendly and helpful. We worked as a class and everyone got along well. We fought in class but that was all based on math, that's how we learned. It's sweet that we don't have to worry about math now, however it's bitter because everyone made math bearable! It was like fun and math put together, didn't think that there was such a thing. Well, I'm going to miss this class the most. Good luck with you all!(Bittersweet was posted by a student)

Class Survey Results

The exam is over and we did a little survey in class. The results are below; 27 students participated. If you'd like to add another comment on what you see here email me or leave a comment below this post.

Without any further ado, here are the results of our class's survey. Please share your thoughts by commenting (anonymously if you wish) below .....

Classroom EnvironmentThe questions in this section were ranked using this 5-point scale:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

The bold numbers after each item are the average ratings given by the entire class.

1. The teacher was enthusiastic about teaching the course. 4.89

2. The teacher made students feel welcome in seeking help in/outside of class. 4.52

3. My interest in math has increased because of this course. 3.70

4. Students were encouraged to ask questions and were given meaningful answers. 4.74

5. The teacher enhanced the class through the use of humour. 4.56

6. Course materials were well understood and explained clearly by the teacher. 4.15

7. Graded materials fairly represented student understanding and effort. 4.16(This question was answered by 26 students.)

8. The teacher showed a genuine interest in individual students. 4.19

220

9. I have learned something that I consider valuable. 4.48

10. The teacher normally came to class well prepared. 4.56

Overall Impression of the CourseThe questions in this section were ranked using this 5 point scale:

Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good

1 2 3 4 5

1. Compared with other high school courses I have taken, I would say this course was: 4.30

2. Compared with other high school teachers I have had, I would say this teacher is: 4.78

3. As an overall rating, I would say this teacher is: 4.70

Course Characteristics

1. Course difficulty, compared to other high school courses:

Very Easy0%

Easy4%

Average22%

Difficult59%

Very Difficult15%

2. Course workload, compared to other high school courses:

Very Easy0%

Easy7%

Average48%

Difficult37%

Very Difficult7%

3. Hours per week required outside of class:

0 to 215%

2 to 337%

3 to 515%

5 to 726%

over 77%

4. Expected grade in the course:

F11%

D15%

C37%

B37%

A0%

Specific Feedback[Ed. Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of students, over 1, that gave the same answer.]

What was your best learning experience in this course?

Learning other things in life that involved math (3)The Blog (16)

Workshop Classes (6)Developing Expert Voices Project (11)

221

the SMARTboard (5)flickr assignmentgroup work (7)

pre-tests (6)interactive work (2)class discussions (4)

scribes (7)Mr. K. (2)

asking questionsthe different projects we did

Mr. K's speeches

What was your worst learning experience in this course?

Developing Expert Voices Projecthomework (2)

not doing homeworknot asking questionsworking alone (4)

late getting tests back (2)flickr assignmentgroup work (3)

doing my Developing Expert Voices Project alonenothing (3)pop quizzes

not knowing what to do (3)"that I learned awesome software called SMARTboard"

whenever Mr. K. was absentnot being able to answer easy questions

What changes would you suggest to improve the way this course is taught?

teach slowerteacher gets off topic and makes me lose motivation

teacher sometimes wordy explaining different conceptsbring back Go For Gold

lighten the homework loadgive tests back ASAP (4)

ask and solve questions consistently; not in different waysmore group work (2)

more math jokesmore review before the exam

none (4)start semester with a test on previous knowledge

give more notes instead of just lecturing

222

bring back the "Math Dictionary" (2)bring back the del.icio.us box

Additional Student Comments

this class was the best everthe teacher answered questions even when asked 100 times

good use of SMARTboard technologyI really enjoyed this class; it was fun and not boring

Mr. K. was extremely enthusiastic and creative about everything

It's interesting to compare the items that were considered both the worst and best learning experiences. Also, take a look at the list of worst learning experiences compared to suggestions for next year. Help me do a better job next year by commenting on what you see here ....

(Pre-calculus course, Fall of 2007)http://pc40sf07.blogspot.com/