Examining the effect of small group discussions and question prompts on vicarious learning outcomes

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 66-80

  Lee, Yekyung ^a   Ertmer, Peggy A ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Group discussion; Preservice teacher education; Question prompts; Technology integration; Vicarious learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008756516     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782473     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Albion, P. R., & Gibson, I. W. (2000). Problem-based learning as a multimedia design framework in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 315-326.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
4. Brown, I. J., & Inouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 900-908.
5. Carrier, C. A., & Sales, G. C. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer based instructional lesson. Journal ofComputer-Based Instruction, 14(1), 11-17.
6. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
7. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition & Instruction, 8, 293-332.
8. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
9. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
10. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837.
11. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
12. Driscoll, M. P., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialog and monologuelike discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 431-450.
13. Ertmer, P. A., Conklin, D., Lewandowski, J., Osika, E., Selo, M., & Wignall, E. (2003). Increasing preservice teachers’ capacity for technology integration through the use of electronic models. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(1), 95-112.
14. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38.
15. Gist, M., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 884-891.
16. Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking, Journal of Technology Education, 7. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from http://scholar, lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html
17. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
18. Han, N., Crooks, S., & Xie, K. (2005). Using question prompts as metacognitive scaffolds in science reading comprehension. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 1405-1408). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
19. Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262.
20. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83-124). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 63-79.
22. McCown, R., Driscoll, M., & Roop, P. G. (1996). Educational psychology: A learning-centered approach to classroom practice (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23. Powell, A. B., & Ramnauth, M. (1992). Beyond questions and answers: Prompting reflections and deepening understandings of mathematics using multiple-entry logs. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12, 12-18.
24. Rushton, S. P. (2003). Two preservice teachers’ growth in self-efficacy while teaching in an innercity school. The Urban Review, 35, 167-189.
25. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.
26. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27. Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition: Goals and self-evaluative influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 251-260.
28. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
29. Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: Factorial experiment in urban general mathematics classes. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 725-36.
30. Snyder, T., & Sullivan, H. (1995). Cooperative and individual learning and student misconceptions in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 230-235.
31. Sweller J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
32. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
33. Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J. L., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). The use of textbooks as an extra tool during collaborative physics learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 57-76.
34. Van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 227-269.
35. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 36, 231-250.
36. Wang, W. (2001, November). The relative effectiveness of structured questions on summarizing on near and far transfer tasks. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA.
37. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-39.
38. Werner, J. L., & Klein, J. D. (1999, February). Effects of learning structure and summarization during computer-based instruction. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX.
39. Wilson, J. D. (1996). An evaluation of the field experiences of the innovative model for the preparation of elementary teachers for science, mathematics, and technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 53-59.