Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
When designing integration strategies, Roblyer (2006) suggests using technology that has
the power to improve teaching and learning needs; however, before any technology is
implemented, the tool must be examined to determine how it will be beneficial for teachers and
students. Web-based activities, such as Google Docs, have the potential to enhance teaching and
learning, but the implementation of the tool can be time consuming for the teacher. Moreover,
there are three actions that are required of students. In accordance with the technology
integration framework, teachers have to introduce students to technology integration, help
students plan for technology integration, and provide students many opportunities to practice
technology integration skills (Roblyer, 2006).
The focus of this capstone project is to determine if technology, when used to collaborate,
can help English 101 students become better writers. Specifically, if the students use Google
Docs to provide and to receive peer feedback, will there be any improvement in their college-
level writing? Some teachers and professors of English might wonder why not use the traditional
method of peer review. With the traditional method, a teacher is responsible for collecting the
papers, distributing them to other students in the class, and collecting them at the end of the
process. There is nothing wrong with the traditional method of peer review, but, when
technology and peer review are used jointly and correctly, two major things are likely to occur.
First, the teacher is no longer solely responsible for providing all of the feedback, and, second,
students are more likely to become better critical readers and writers.
b. relate notes written on graphic organizers to identify sources of relevant information for
specific audiences and purposes.
e. evaluate peer review and use feedback to edit and revise their rough drafts.
f. apply a rubric to help them write and publish essays for specific audiences with intended
purpose that develop a thesis with relevant material and that follow a logical pattern of
development.
Content Approach
Within the English 101 class, content is not just simply covered; it serves as a passage for
the development of skills (communication and critical thinking), values (social and educational),
culture, and technology integration. Google Docs is a collaborative technology that can
accommodate students as they become of aware of their strengths and weaknesses when writing
various essays. Furthermore, students will use their strengths in collaborative efforts to assist
others, who might be weaker in certain aspects of the writing process.
Grouping Approach
All of the English 101 students are expected to enhance their current writing abilities and
make academic gains while doing so. Based on the students’ participation and responses during
the discussion of assigned readings, it became obvious that the traditional lecture did not work
well. Therefore, deviation from the norm and differentiation were implemented to meet the
academic needs, interests, background knowledge, personalities, and capacities of the students
(Patterson, Connolly, & Ritter, 2009). Differentiation is defined as the practice of creating
lessons and activities to accommodate the diverse needs of students in a class. Landrum and
McDuffie (2010) listed Carol Ann Tomlinson’s suggestions for differentiation – rigor,
scaffolding, and grouping. In the words of Carol Ann Tomlinson (2001), “In a differentiated
classroom, commonalities are acknowledged and built upon, and student differences become
important elements in teaching and learning.”
Further analysis of the English 101 students’ academic needs, learning styles, and
motivations proved that grouping was the most effective differentiation tool because students are
continuously afforded opportunities to become engaged in activities in a whole-class, alone,
pairs, or with a small group. Since the students have varying academic levels, grouping has
encouraged students to learn to work independently and cooperatively; helped students
strengthen their weaknesses and/or weaknesses; and is seen as a combination of teacher-assigned
and student choice selections (Chapman & King, 2008). Below is a table detailing how
differentiation and grouping are being used in the English 101 class.
Diverse Learners
Using the multiple intelligence model based on the work of Howard Gardner instruction
is implemented to meet the diverse needs of each student. The intelligences are visual/spatial,
logical/mathematical, verbal/linguistic, music/rhythmic, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, naturalist, and existentialist (Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell 2008). The multiple
intelligences recognize the diversity of students and maintain that students have many different
learning styles. None of the students has a 504 or an IEP. Four of the nine multiple intelligences
are addressed in each class meeting, and the other intelligences are infused as needed.
Differentiated strategies are in place to meet the varied needs of all learners based on the
following intelligences:
b. Verbal/Linguistic learners – Pairs and small groups generate ideas for presentations,
discussions, peer review, and think-pair-share activities. Individually, each student is
scheduled to conference with the instructor after the completion of each essay.
d. Intrapersonal – Students work independently to write the required essays, fill in graphic
organizers, and reflect on their writing strengths and weaknesses with each essay.
Technology Integration
Technology has changed the way people communicate and work. Moreover, technology
has caused a shift in the decision-making and communication responsibilities to workers
(Sweeney, 2010). The changes require workers to have certain skills (critical thinking,
collaboration, accessing and analyzing information, and oral and written communication).
Writing skills are one of the most difficult communication abilities to teach students. Effective
communication of ideas through speaking and writing is essential. When the writing process is
taught, peer review is often under-utilized or not used at all. Students are quite capable of
providing peer review when they are taught to do so. In the words of Van Horn (2010), “…, peer
review can provide students with critical feedback and an authentic collaborative writing process
before their final drafts are completed.” Lending further support to skills of communication and
collaboration is the National Educational Technology Standards for Students, International
Society for Technology in Education (2007), which reads, “Students interact, collaborate, and
publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of digital environments and media.”
Computer technologies can help students become better writers, but when considering
which technology to use, the instructor must examine the tool to determine if it is effective for
the students and the writing tasks. Additionally, before introducing and integrating technologies
to aid with the writing process, instructors and students must fully understand that technology
integration is more than having access; it is a tool for improving teaching and learning.
In the case involving English 101 students, there is a need for online word processing
applications for collaboration and peer review. When students work in small groups or pairs,
they learn to help one another master concepts. Of the leading online word processing
applications, Google Docs, is the best because it is free, and it allows students to collaborate –
both synchronously and asynchronously. During the writing process, students need and want
immediate feedback. On the other hand, traditional feedback using pen and paper is extremely
time consuming. As an example, Google Docs provides students with feedback from more than
one person, and this feedback has proven to be more beneficial than traditional peer review.
When students post their essays to Google Docs, the audience is no longer just the teacher. The
audience grows to include the many class members, who help the author consider effectiveness,
writing strengths and/or weaknesses, and a better understanding of audience.
Student Preparation
The English 101 students are anxious to earn their first college degrees, which will lead
to new careers and/or career advances. The students were not resistant to using technology and
learning new technology. So, the introduction of Google Docs was met with open arms. On the
downside, since writing is a difficult skill to teach and master, some students are still not
comfortable with peer review because they are shy about giving peers constructive criticizing
because they assume that feelings will be hurt. And, since use of peer review is optional, some
students have decided to disregard the peer review provided. On a positive note, one student
takes advantage of Skype for peer review questions and concerns. She uses Skype to speak with
others about her reviews (given and received). Ultimately, it is not about the technology; it is
about the learning and the application of knowledge.
Approval
The timeline was reviewed and approved by Mrs. Betty Holton, Chair of the English
Department.
Timeline
Date Focus
February 3 Collaborating and Peer Editing with Google Docs
Submission: Turnitin.com
Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated
In this present day and time, many confuse individualized instruction with differentiated
instruction. Each form of instruction makes it known that students have different learning styles,
and all students deserve to be met where they are educationally. However, that is the only
similarity shared between individualized instruction and differentiated instruction and
individualized instruction. As with its namesake, individualized instruction forces a teacher to
develop something different for each student. On the other hand, differentiated instruction makes
the case for grouping because the teacher has to work with the whole class, sometimes with
small groups, and sometimes one-on-one with individuals. Subsequently, teachers can truly
differentiate instruction by adjusting content, process, and/or products based on students’
academic needs and learning styles (Rock et al., 2008).
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for
from EBSCOhost.
Barrett, K. R., Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N. C. (2007). Teaching styles of community college
doi:10.1080/08923640701298738
management: Work smarter, not harder (p. 83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POIR37Hmydg
ISTE. (2007). The ISTE nets and performance indicators for teachers (NETS.T). Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Student_2007_EN.sflb.ashx
ISTE. (2008). The ISTE nets and performance indicators for teachers (NETS.T). Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Moving teaching and learning online. Building online learning
Patterson, J. L., Connolly, M. C., & Ritter, S. A. (2009). Restructuring the inclusion classroom
from EBSCOhost.
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Preface. Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.) Upper
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for
from EBSCOhost.
Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L. & Russell, J. D. (2008). Instructional strategies: Integrating
technology and media. Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper
Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L. & Russell, J. D. (2008). The ASSURE model: Creating the
learning experience. Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper
Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using
new literacies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
54(2), 121-130.
in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.