TechTrends

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 34–41 | Cite as

Enhancing Instruction through Constructivism, Cooperative Learning, and Cloud Computing

  • David W. Denton
Article

Abstract

Cloud computing technologies, such as Google Docs and Microsoft Office Live, have the potential to enhance instructional methods predicated on constructivism and cooperative learning. Cloud-based application features like file sharing and online publishing are prompting departments of education across the nation to adopt these technologies. However, realizing the full potential of these tools necessitates that future educators develop an understanding of how they can be used. Strategies for integrating cloud-based applications are suggested and results from a case study involving graduate education students are presented.

Keywords

case study cloud computing constructivist learning cooperative learning Google Docs instructional strategies Web 2.0 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An Investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143.Google Scholar
  2. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Caimbridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519–546.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J., & Pence, H. E. (2011). Managing laboratory data using cloud computing as an organizational tool. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 761–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blood, E. (2011). Point systems made simple with Google Docs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonham, S. (2011). Whole class laboratories with Google Docs. Physics Teacher, 49(1), 22–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carnevale, D. (2008). Colleges get out of e-mail business. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(18), A1.Google Scholar
  10. Casap, J. (2010). Alis volat propriis: Oregon’s bringing Google Apps to classrooms statewide. Official Google Blog. Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.com
  11. Claburn, T. (2010). Google Apps available to New York schools. Information Week. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com
  12. Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, A., Pantzopoulos, K., & Gray, K. (2011). Emphasising assessment “as” learning by assessing wiki writing assignments collaboratively and publicly online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 798–812.Google Scholar
  14. Dessoff, A. (2010). Google and Microsoft go to school. District Administration, 46(8), 61–66.Google Scholar
  15. Dunlap, J. (2006). Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students’ changing perceptions. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(6), 20–26.Google Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Yu, J., & Lee, Y. (2011). Students’ confidence and perceived value for participating in cross-cultural wiki-based collaborations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friesen, N. (2011). The lecture as transmedial pedagogical form: A historical analysis. Educational Researcher, 40, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldsmith, S. (1996). Journal reflection: A resource guide for community service leaders and educators engaged in service learning. Washington, DC: The American Alliance for Rights & Responsibilities.Google Scholar
  19. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grossman R (2009a) Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching 57(1):15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holsinger, A, VanMeter, & J, Pala, C. (2011). Press release: ePals enables SchoolSafe access to third-party applications starting with Microsoft Office Web Apps and Google Docs. ESchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com
  23. Hubbs, D., & Brand, C. (2005). The paper mirror: Understanding reflective journaling. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 60–71.Google Scholar
  24. International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). National educational technology standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org
  25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974, August). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualized goal structures on learning outcomes. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The State of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, P. (2009). The 21st century skills movement - the chair of the partnership for 21st century skills spells out goals. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 11.Google Scholar
  29. Kear, K., Woodthorpe, J., Robertson, S., & Hutchison, M. (2010). From forums to wikis: Perspectives on tools for collaboration. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–334.Google Scholar
  31. King, P. (2002). Promoting thinking through peer learning. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lai, Y., & Ng, E. W. (2011). Using wikis to develop student teachers’ learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities. Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Basse.Google Scholar
  34. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindenberg, K. (2011). Press release: Pearson CloudConnect now available for Google Apps for education. ESchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/
  36. Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22, 222–240.Google Scholar
  37. Matthews, M. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics (pp. 161-192). In D.C. Philips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  38. Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nevin, R. (2009). Supporting 21st century learning through Google Apps. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 35–38.Google Scholar
  40. Nicholas, H., & Ng, W. (2009). Fostering online social construction of science knowledge with primary preservice teachers working in virtual teams. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Noddings, N. (2007). Philosophy of education (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pavlovich, K. (2007). The development of reflective practice through student journals. Higher Education Research and Development, 26, 281–295. doi:10.1080/07294360701494302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record, 104, 1393–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 123–127.Google Scholar
  46. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47, 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U., & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning: Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 747–762. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-8535.2010.01092.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shermis, M. D. & DiVesta, F. J. (2011). Classroom assessment in action. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Terrell, J., Richardson, J., & Hamilton, M. (2011). Using web 2.0 to teach web 2.0: A case study in aligning teaching, learning and assessment with professional practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 846–862.Google Scholar
  52. Thomas, G., Martin, D., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  53. Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 149–160. doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.492847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2010). Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiseman, R. C. (2006). We have met our past and our future: Thanks for the walk down memory lane. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(3), 14–15.Google Scholar
  56. Wood, M. (2011). Collaborative lab reports with Google Docs. Physics Teacher, 49(3), 158–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Denton
    • 1
  1. 1.Seattle Pacific UniversitySeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations