ARTICLE SUMMARY

This article by Kershner, Mercer and Staarman (Kershner, R., Mercer, N.,
Warwick., P. & Staarman J. 2010, Can the interactive whiteboard support
young childrens collaborative communication and thinking in classroom
science activities?, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol 5,
pp359-383) examines the way IWB (Interactive Whiteboards) can be used
to enhance the collaborative learning approach in classrooms. Technology
is becoming ever more prevalent in the modern world and teachers have
adapted to include technology into their classrooms, particularly IWBs
and Smart Boards. This article is part of a wider range of research which
seeks to examine how technology can be used to its full capacity in the
classroom and how technology impacts student learning.
The pedagogical framework behind this study derives from socialconstructivist learning theories and the socio-cultural theory of Lev
Vygotsky. Vygotskys theory emphasises that language is the key factor in
the development of all higher order cognitive processes. (p54 text) This
study closely examines the students language and examines what they
say to gain a better insight into the students learning process, their
functioning as a collaborative group and engagement with the activity.
Collaborative learning is used as a means to encourage students to talk
with other students about their learning. By being placed into groups,
students are exposed to different the opinion, understandings and
experiences of other students which can help them learn new information
by making more connections.
The participants in this study included twelve class teachers and their
students aged between 8 and 10. From these twelve classes, teachers
chose target groups consisting of three students of average achievement
who had already been working together as a group on other learning
tasks. The study included several different methods to gather data
included a series of three lessons videoed in each classroom, field notes,
pupil interviews, teacher discussions, teachers written commentaries,
and other documentation including the IWB screen records. The article
focuses on two groups of students working collaboratively with an IWB
during different lessons.
Each group interacts differently with each other and with the IWB and as a
result the results of this study are seen to be mixed. Those students who
have had limited interaction with the IWB see it as a motivation to engage
in the learning activity. Their discussions are more about the IWB than the
scientific content of the activity. In comparison the other group do not see
the IWB as a motivator to engage in the lesson, more as a tool to
complete the required activities, and therefore spend more time away
from the IWB discussing their topic using scientific terminology and
exchanging ideas. The results of this study can be generalised to include
the impacts of ICT on collaborative learning in the classroom. The authors

conclude that none of the features offered via the IWB are exclusive to the
IWB and another such ICT device could be used to the same effect. The
authors also conclude that their observations show that the collaborative
task with the IWB demonstrated a highly integrated system of physical
activity, spoken dialogue, and nonverbal communication.

WRITTEN DISCUSSION
What can generally be concluded from the article in relation to
teaching and learning?
There are three main points that can be concluded from this article;
collaborative learning, while an effective educational tool, requires a large
amount of scaffolding in order to achieve the desired results, that
technology must be used wisely in order to present it becoming a
distraction rather than a learning tool, and that teachers need to be
listening to conversations amongst student groups in order to gain an
insight to group dynamics, goal achievements and task engagement.
Collaborative discussion is a learning approach that suits itself well to the
subject of science as it provides students with the opportunities to test
their existing knowledge, assimilate new ideas and gain different
perspectives from their peers. Discussing scientific themes with peers
allows students to share thoughts, ideas, and questions freely with each
other, without teacher direction or interference, the languages of the child
and of science melded together to create a scientific discourse (Bennett,
1999, p.5).
The article highlights the need for teachers to create scaffolding which
supports collaborative discussion long before they expect student to
undertake collaborative group work together. Students need to be able to
take turns, share ideas and listen to one another. If these basic
communication skills are not present then students will not be able to
effectively work as a group and engage in collaborative discussion.
Individual learners have to engage each others thinking in order for
collaborative learning to be more effective than individual learning. This
means that learners need to achieve a common cognitive frame of
reference, or common ground, to reap the benefits of having multiple
problem perspectives within a learning group (Kershner, Mercer,
Warwick,. & Staarman, 2010, p.537). Working as a group does not come
easily for some students and without the interaction of all group members
optimum collaboration will not take place. simply putting students
together does not automatically bring about collaboration and productive
learning; students need to know how to regulate their learning and
collaboration (Chan, 2012, p.65). Students can find learning on its own a

struggle let alone working within a group environment. Students need to

focus on their own learning as well as the way the group interacts with
each other.
Another implication from this article in terms of teaching can be seen in
the role which the teacher takes while the groups of students are working
collaboratively together. When students are working in their groups the
teacher does not simply remove themselves from the learning process,
they instead take on a different role. This was observed by Maloch, 1999,
where she describes the teachers role during collaborative group work as
an active one. While students are engaged in their group work the teacher
is still present, be it on the outside of the group, sitting just outside the
circle... she acted as a facilitator and a mediator, rather than a leader.
Instead of orchestrating the discussion from the outset of the discussion,
she responded to what students generated (Maloch, 1999, p.7). Maloch
describes the role of the teacher in two areas, to help students with
problem solving and to provide students with strategies that they can use
to enrich their discussions (Maloch, 1999, p.10). The article by Kershner,
Mercer, Warwick & Staarman does not show the interaction of the teacher
amongst the student groups. However, it does show the differences
between groups who are able to engage in collaborative tasks and those
who dont. As a teacher this distinction would be useful so that teachers
know which groups need assistance and which ones are plodding along
nicely. The teachers ability to reflect on how the students are learning is a
vital part of collaborative learning.
One last conclusion that can be made from this article is the use of ICT in
the classrooms. As shown in the article, the IWB was not necessarily a
useful tool for the students to use during this activity. The group which did
stay on task actually moved away from the IWB to complete their task and
the group which stayed at the IWB talked more about the IWB than the
task itself, the IWB acting as a distraction. This comes back to the
scaffolding that teachers need to provide around how to use ICT and how
to behave when using it. The more experience student have using ICT, the
less it will become a motivator of novelty. Student will then be able to use
ICT for its appropriate purpose rather than experimenting or playing with
its features.
Can the findings of the article be employed in your classroom? Why?
I believe that I am able to use these finding in the classroom as collaborative
learning is a learning approach that encourage in my classroom. The articles
findings about how different groups interact differently with and without the ICT
and how it may become a form of distraction. Collaboration requires scaffolding,
and so too does the use of ICT. I would not try to use ICT as a tool for
collaborative learning unless I felt that the students had sufficient scaffolding in
each area. I will be careful not to employ technology in a way that will distract

students from the original purpose of the lesson. Another point that I can take
away from this article is pay attention to the type of discussion occurring
amongst groups and the need to discern if this is talk for talk sake, or talk about
the topic at hand. If it is not talk about the topic then it may be necessary for me,
as a teacher, to provide more scaffolding for particular groups or the class as a
whole.

Forum Posting
The article I read concerns collaborative learning and ICT in the classroom
(Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick., P. & Staarman J. 2010, Can the

interactive
whiteboard
support
young
childrens
collaborative
communication and thinking in classroom science activities?, ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, Vol 5, pp359-383). The article provides
a good starting point if you are interested in the use of ICT and
collaboration in the classroom as it identifies some important key ideas in
relation to these issues. It does not offer any conclusions to the issue, but
emphasises the need for further research in this area. If you are already
aware of ICT issues in the classroom I would not recommend this article
for you to read as it will not offer any new insights for you. For someone
like me though, I dont have a strong ICT background, I found it quite
useful and easy to understand.

REFERENCES
Bennett, J.M. 1999, Students Learning Science through Collaborative
Discussions on Current Events in Science, Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching (Boston, MA,March 28-31, 1999).

Chan, C.K.K 2012, Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported

collaborative learning environments: a discussion, Metacognition
Learning, Vol.7, pp63-73
Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick., P.
interactive whiteboard support
communication and thinking in
Computer-Supported Collaborative

& Staarman J. 2010, Can the

young childrens collaborative
classroom science
activities?,
Learning, Vol 5, pp359-383

Malcoh, B. 1999, Shifting to Student-Centered, Collaborative Classrooms:

Implementing Student-Led Discussion Groups,Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Vialle, W., Lysaght, P. & Verenikina, I. 2014, Psychology for Educators,

Cengage Learning, Australia