Advertisement

Prospective teachers’ insights towards scaffolding students’ writing processes through teacher–student role reversal in an online system

Research Article

Abstract

Teachers are encouraged to plan their teaching based on students’ needs from the student-centered perspectives. Of the many teacher training programs, teacher–student role reversal is regarded as one of the most effective avenues to help teachers identify students’ learning difficulties and further provide adaptive instruction. However, as the role reversal process is difficult to document in the face-to-face environment due to its interactive and dynamic property, very few studies on teacher–student role reversal have been empirically conducted. Studies on this issue thus were mainly presented in the form of position papers or experience sharing entries. The purpose of this study was to explore prospective teachers’ (PT) role reversal experience within the computer-supported (CS) environment. In the CS environment, 14 PT were invited to play the role as student Writers, Editors, and Commentators. The results showed that the teacher–student role reversal activities provided the PTs with a first-hand experience to formulate and reformulate their professional knowledge through reflection. By reflecting on their role-reversal, the PTs could identify the difficulties that impeded students’ writing and generated the insights on how they could better scaffold their students’ writing, editing, and revising process. With the feature of the process data, the CS environment was found to effectively support teacher–student role reversal as the PTs employed the process data, such as action logs or written texts, to reflect on their role play process to probe into the students’ writing problems and develop insights into pedagogy.

Keywords

Role reversal Writing process Student-centered perspectives Prospective teachers Computer-supported environment 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was part of a larger study, supported by National Science Council in the Republic of China, Taiwan (NSC 96-2411-H-224-015). The research grant made the continuation of this study possible.

References

  1. Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. (2005). Prospective teachers’ observations of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in an early field experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(4), 97–117.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as source. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  3. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton, J. (2005). The importance of teachers writing on TESOL. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  5. Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 229–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, I., Land, S., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33, 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, A. (1992). The teacher’s role in learner strategy training: An innovation in teacher education. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 241–252). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of a reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.Google Scholar
  9. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eken, D. K. (1999). Through the eyes of the learner: Learner observations of teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 53(4), 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis, E. M. (2003). Bilingualism among teachers of English as a second language: A study of second language learning experience as a contributor to the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers of ESL to adults. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Griffith University.Google Scholar
  12. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grainger, T. (2005). Teachers as writers: Learning together. English in Education, 39, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, J. (1998). The language leaner as teacher: The use of interactive diaries in teacher training. ELT Jounral, 52(1), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y. S., & Ho, C. M. L. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53, 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Charles, Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, T.-C. (2005). Web-based cognitive apprenticeship model for improving pre-service teachers’ performances and attitudes towards instructional planning: Design and field experiment. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 136–149.Google Scholar
  19. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lowe, T. (1987). An experiment in role reversal: Teacher as language learners. ELT Journal, 41(2), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCombs, B. L. (2001). What do we know about leaner and learning? The learner-centered framework: Bringing the educational system into balance. Educational Horizons, 79(4), 182–193.Google Scholar
  22. McDonough, J. (2002). The teacher as language learner: Worlds of difference? ELT Journal, 56(4), 404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan, D. N. (2010). Preservice teachers as writers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 352–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15, 571–587.Google Scholar
  26. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Pennington, M. C. (1995). The teacher change cycle. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 705–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ransdell, D. R. (1993). Creative writing is Greek to me: The continuing education of a language teacher. ELT Journal, 47(1), 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritchie, J. S., & Wilson, D. E. (2000). Teacher narrative as critical inquiry: Rewriting the script. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  30. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge-building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.nsdc.org/news/authors/NSDCPlan.cfm.
  34. Walters, A., Sunderland, J., Bray, T., & Allwright, J. (1990). Getting the best out of ‘the language-learning experience’. ELT Journal, 44(4), 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Wishart, J. M., Oades, C. E., & Morris, M. (2007). Using online role play to teach internet safety awareness. Computers & Education, 48, 460–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang, S. H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology and Society, 12(2), 11–21.Google Scholar
  38. Yang, Y. F., Yeh, H. C., & Wong, W. K. (2008). Constructing mental representation of reference by feedback in a computer system. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1959–1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yeh, H. C., & Yang, Y. F. (2010). Metacognitive process in online text construction. Educational Technology and Society, in press.Google Scholar
  40. Yeh, H. C., Yang, Y. F., & Wong, W. K. (2010). Interaction chain patterns of online text construction with lexical cohesion. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 38–55.Google Scholar
  41. Yeh, S. W. (2003). The effects of web page structure and metacognitive knowledge on EFL learners’ comprehension in hypermedia CALL. In Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on english teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp. 613–624). Taipei: Crane.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Applied Foreign LanguagesNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyDouliuTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations