Cognitive Apprenticeship in Computer-Mediated Feedback: Creating a Classroom Environment to Increase Feedback and Learning

Abstract

This qualitative case study of 1 teacher and 10 students in an Advanced Placement English class explores the role of computer-mediated feedback in the creation of a classroom learning environment that was supported through hybrid learning experiences. Data sources included classroom observations, online conversations, interviews with 10 high school students, and informal conversations with a high school English teacher. Both inductive and deductive analyses, framed using a cognitive apprenticeship model, revealed how asynchronous online discussions can support the development of safe and productive communities where students actively engage in subject matter learning. The study reveals how online discussion forums can provide an excellent medium where students observe models of writing, engage in the writing process, and observe, reflect upon, and discover expert strategies in context. This study illustrates how both the quantity and quality of computer-mediated feedback increased over time, resulting in students learning not only from their teacher but from each other.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

J. R.

Reder

L. M.

, & Simon

H. A.

(1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher 25(4), 5–11.

Anson

C. M.

(1999). Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture of technology. College English, 61(3), 261–280.

Bangert-Drowns

R. L.

Kulik

C. C.

Kulik

J. A.

, & Morgan

M. T.

(1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

Boling

E. C.

Beatty

, & Partin

(2008). Adolescent literacy and online discussions: Enhancing learning opportunities in the English classroom. Information Technology, Education and Society, 9(1), 71–92.

Bond

Smith

Baker

W. K.

, & Hattie

J. A.

(2000). Certification systems of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Brophy

(1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5–32.

Collins

(2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In Sawyer

R. K.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen

V. B.

(1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instruction: Implications for instructional design. Educational Technology, 25(1), 33–37.

Davidson-Shivers

G. V.

(2009). Frequency and types of instructor-interactions in online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(1), 23–40.

10.

Eastmond

D. V.

(1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

11.

Epstein

M. L.

Lazarus

A. D.

Calvano

T. B.

Matthews

K. A.

Hendel

R. A.

Epstein

B. B.

(2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52, 187–201.

12.

Gavelek

J. R.

, & Raphael

T. E.

(1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73(3), 182–192.

13.

Glaser

B. G.

, & Strauss

A. L.

(1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine.

14.

Hattie

, & Timperley

(2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

15.

Hewett

(2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265–288.

16.

Jiang

, & Ting

(2000) A study of factors influencing students' perceived learning in a web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 317–338.

17.

Lave

, & Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

, & Bol

(2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115.

19.

MacLeod

(1999). Computer-aided peer review of writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(3), 87–95.

20.

Narciss

, & Huth

(2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In Niegemann

H. M.

Leutner

, & Brunken

(Ed.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster, NY: Waxmann.

21.

Ruberg

L. F.

Moore

D. M.

, & Taylor

C. D.

(1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 243–268.

22.

Schaffer

(1996). Peer response that works. Journal of Teaching Writing, 15(1), 81–89.

23.

Shute

V. J.

(2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

24.

Swan

(2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49.

25.

Topping

(1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 294–297.

26.

Trautmann

(2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 685–704.

27.

Wallace

(2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447–488.

28.

Ware

(2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21, 451–468.