11 How Computers Can Help Children Think

244

KIN ZER AND WILBER

APPENDIX 10. A

CHAPTER

Holocaust Web Site Resources U.S. Holocaust Museum: www.ushmm.org Museum site-educalion link has an excellent learning site ror students: fairly high reading level: also has links to online exhibitions. A Cybracy of the Holocaust: www.remember.org Lots or information: camp photos, art, biographies, quits. and so lorth.

11

Voice Vision: Holocaust & Survivor Oral History: holocaust.umd.umich.edu All survivor interviews-requires Acrobat and audio. Holocaust Pictur es Exhibition: www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/ holocaust.html Very powerful pictures, but some are very graphic-only use under th e supervision or an adult. A Teacher's Gulde to the Holocaust: rcit.coedu.usl.edu/ holocaust/ derault.htm Good links with timeline, people, and art; also movies and sound liles.

How Computers Can Help Children Think Together About Texts Neil Mercer

Holocaust (Shoah) Research Resources: www.igc.org/ddickerson/ holocaust.html Tons of links (one link l o David's Holocaust project done by a middle school student is especially interesting).

University of Cambridge. UK

Holocaust Memorial Center: www.holocaustcenter.org Lirechance exhibit- powerrul look at how you would have done in the Holocaust; good rererence seclion.

University of Exeter, UK

The Holocaust, the World Must Remember: www.rockingham.k 12.va.us/EMS/ Holocaust/ Holocaust.html Excellent site; contains a warning about graphic nature or parts or the si te; tons or links.

University of Northampton. UK

The Holocaust: A Tragic Legacy: library.thinkquest.org/ 12663/ Designed ror kids; pictures or camps, timelines. glossary.

The Open University. UK

Women & the Holocaust: www.interlog.com/-mighty/ Devoted to women in the Holocaust; lots or stories in rirst person.

Rupert Wegerif Lyn Dawes Clare Sams Manuel Fernandez UNESCO, Mexico

CANDLES: Holocaust Museum: www. candles-museum.com Museum site, designed ror stud ents.

!his :~apte: is based on recent and continuing research by the authors m Bnt1sh primary schools. We describe how computer-based activities ~ave been used in the context of an intervention study designed to 1 m_pro~e th ~ quality o f children's collaborative work and develop their skills m using sp oken and written language. Because our research is based ?n a socio~ult_ural perspective on language, commun ication , and ~ducat1on, we will first offer a bri ef account of how this perspective informs o~r c?nception o f language, literacy, and the use of computer technologies m schools. In the second section we provide a more detailed background to our research through a consideration of the nature and functions of talk and collaborative activity in classrooms as revealed by observational research. In the third section we discuss ~he ways_ computers can _provide a focus for children's joint activity, and so lead mto a presentation o f the methods and outcomes of our Thinking

246

MERCER ET AL.

Together research. We will concentrate on two strands of that research. The first is the use of appropriate software for enabling children to develop and practice their skills in thinking together about narrative development. This is illustr ated by examples of triads of children (aged 10- 11) in one of our project schools working with one of our own specially designed computer programs. The second strand is the role of the teacher in "scaffolding" children's awareness of audience in their writing. This is illustrated by an example of a teacher in one of our project schools helping children compose an e-mai l message to children in another school. We conclude the chapter by summarizi ng some outcomes from our research and discussing educational implications. A sociocultural account of human learning and development is one that gives particular attention to the roles of language, social interaction, and culture in shaping ways of thinking. Language was described by L. S.Vygotsky ( 1934/ 1987), the founding father of sociocultural theory, as both a "cultural tool" and a "psychological tool" that enables us to construct and maintain both social and individual ways of thinking. Language is not merely a tool for exchanging information or facilitating social inter action; it is a tool for collective sense making, or "interthinking" (Mercer, 2000). Some sociocultural researchers (e.g., Wells, 1999) have suggested that it is more appropriate to describe language as a "toolkit" than a "tool, "because of the range of functional forms that any particular language can take. But even that image is inadequate in one sense, as a language does not simply exist as a fixed set of tools for communicating; it provides the resources from which specific communicative tools can be made. This is reflected in the ever-changing range of registers and genres of language, which people create to get things done. New technologies offer us new ways of communicating, and language takes on novel forms as we make use of these new media. The forms of language found in e-mail, computer conferencing, and "t exting" with mobile phones reflect both the nature of the technologies and the purposes to which people apply them. These technological and communicative developments have caused language researchers to reexamine what is meant by "literacy" (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Pailliotet & Mosenthal, 2000; Rassool, 1999). The language of e-mail and the chatroom has features that linguists have hither to associated more with speech than with writing. We might note, however, that despite their novel qualities, most of these new communication technologies still require of users a functional competence in written language. In recent years, there has also been a growing awareness of the nature of literacy as social practice. That is , rather than conceiving of literacy simply as a set of individual cognitive skills, researchers have studied functional literacy and literacy development in the contexts of

11

llOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

247

social interaction. Anthropological and sociolinguistic research on how written language is used and what it means to be liter ate in any society (Barton, 1994; Heath, 1983; Street, 1983;) has shown how becoming literate involves more than learning how to decode and encode text. It involves participating in the functional use of written languages, moving between speech and writing, and engaging with others in in terpreting written texts within a social group or community. The changing nature of language use and literacy in contemporary society has profound implications for education. As schools are expected to enable young people to become able comm unicators within their society, changes in the ways people communicate should to be reflected in the curriculum. We can already see some effects of this in what is taught and learned in schools and colleges throughout the world and in the increased use of computer technology for teaching and learning. It is clear that children need to become literate in new ways and that schools must help them do so. The guiding, "scaffolding" influence of others through talk is crucial for enabling learners to become familiar with the language registers and genres of their society. However, there is a danger that the dramatic rise of new technology might obscure some more fundamental aspects of the use of language that remain important for understanding how we communicate and that are of enduring and crucial significance for education. The need to communicate effectively through talk is no less important today than it ever was. As we will explain , computer-based activities can be undertaken in a way that will increase oppor tunities ror children to talk and work together and to develop t heir skills in both spoken and written language as they do so. A sociocultural perspective on education accords great significance to the formative influences of dialogue between teachers and learners. Increased educational use of new technologies does not diminish the significance of such dialogues, though it may increase the range of ways in which these dialogues can be achieved. Language has a dual role in education, as both "the medium" (as used by teachers to provide guidance and by learners to share their understanding with teachers and peers) and "the message" (with one of the aims of education being the development of ways of using spoken and written language). The research we will describe has been concerned with both aspects. THE QUALITY OF TALK AND JOINT ACTIVITY IN CLASSROOMS

One of the main applied aims of our research has been to improve the educational effect iveness of the interactions of teaching and learning. As we will explain in this section, our approach has not only been influenced by a sociocultural perspective on teaching and learning, but

248

MERCER ET AL.

also by a specific concern about the quality of educational interaction: that in educational settings participants may unfortunately and unnecessarily lack a clear, shared understanding of the purposes and parameters of the activities in whi ch they are engaged. This concern arises from the findings of empirical research. Educational Ground Rules

Our own early research (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) showed how the familiar patterns of classroom interaction between teachers and pupils could be understood as being generated by implicit norms or "educational ground rules." So long as participants share this taken-forgranted understanding of how life in school is to be conducted-or at least if such under standing is not brought into question-events appear to proceed smoot hly. But the careful analysis of classroom talk reveals that classroom interaction is often not based on a foundation of "common knowledge" and that misunderstandings are often rife. Similar conclusions have been drawn by observational researchers in a range of classrooms in varied cultural settings (as reviewed in Mercer, 1995, chap. 3). It seems that teachers-at all levels of education, from primary to university-have rarely made the learning purposes or criteria for success of educational activities explicit. When setting up groupbased activity, teachers hardly ever begin by sharing with a class their expectations for how stud ents should interpret an instruction like "discuss t his text " or " work together to solve this problem," perhaps assuming t hat these matters are self-evident. One effect of this has been that students often lack a clear understanding of what they are expected to do and why they are doing it. They may have no understand ing of what constitutes "discussion" in ed ucational settings or how to "work together." Drawing on the concept of educational ground rules in their study of writing in British secondar y schools, Sheeran and Barnes ( 199 1) showed how many of the expectations that teachers had about what constitutes a satisfactory essay, scientific repor t, or other kind of written work were never made explicit to pupils. And even when some of those requirements were made clear, t eachers rarely discussed with pupils why they were expected to write (or talk) in particular ways. Sheeran and Barnes therefore concluded: "In spite of their importance, these tacit expectations or ground rules are seldom discussed with pupils, because the teachers themselves are largely unaware of them" (p. 2). The lack of a shared conception of purpose, norms for interaction, and criteria for success among participants in classrooms may account

11

HO\\/ COMPUTERS CAN HELP

249

for the ineffectiveness of some well-intended activit ies for engaging students and promoting their learning and development. Bringing such matters out into the open could have educational benefits, as Sheeran and Barnes ( 199 1) and others have suggested. From their extensive review of studies of group work in primary classrooms, Gaitan and Williamson (1992) concluded the following: "For successful collaboration to take place, pupils need to be taught how to collaborate so that they have a clear idea of what is expected of them" (p. 43, italics added). But what exactly is expected of primary school children when they are asked to work and talk together? And what should be expected of them? We will consider these matters next. Exploratory Talk

In an early phase of our research, we asked participating teachers to make explicit their views about how they would like children to talk in joint activities. From their responses-which showed a remarkable consensus, among both teachers and researchers-and from the results of other relevant research (such as that of Barnes & Todd, 1977, 1995; Norman, 1992), we attempted to define a kind of talk that would be good for solving intellectual problems and advancing understanding. Barnes and Todd ( 1977) suggested that pupils engaged in joint tasks such as reading comprehension and problem solving should be encouraged to make their ideas explicit in ways that would not normally be required in everyday discourse. They should help to recognize the need for sharing all relevant information, explaining t heir opinions clearly and w ith justification, and for examining each other 's opinions and explanations critically. In other words, in such discussions knowledge should be made publicly accountable. Barnes and Todd argue that the successful pursuit of educational activity through group work depends on this kind of communication and on participants having a joint conception of what they are trying to achieve by it. Following Barnes and Todd, we called this explor atory talk. The most recent definition of this kind of talk is as follow s: Exploratory talk is that in which partners engage c riti cally but constructively with each other's ideas. Relevant information is offered for joint consideration. Proposals may be challenged and counter-challenged, but if so reasons are given and alternatives are offered. Agreement is sought as a basis for joint progress. Knowledge is made publicly account able and reasoning is visible in the talk. (Mercer, 2000, p. 98)

2 50

11

MERCER ET AL.

25 I

TABLE 11.l Ground Rules !or Talk From One Primary Class

Establis hing Ground Rules for Explorato ry Ta lk Over more than a decade we have been working closely with teachers to implement the ideas previously described and to evaluate them t hrough a series of action research projects in which children and their teachers engaged in specially designed activities. Most of this work has been with upper primary classes (ages 9-11) but recently has also involved children aged 6 and 7 and 12 and 13. The essence of our approach has been to move on from using the concept of educational ground rules merely to describe the implicit normative basis of classroom life and use it prescriptively to generate a new and explicit basis for productive interaction. We have described the methods of this Thinking Together research in more detail elsewhere (i.e., Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999), but in summary the procedure has been as follows. At the initial stage of involvement with participating schools, r esearchers engage in professional development sessions with teachers. This allows the concept of there being implicit educational ground rules in every classroom to be proposed and considered. Teachers are often surprised initially at the idea children might not understand what is expected of them , but most agree that they do not ever normally make the ground rules for discussion explicit in their classes. This leads into a consideration of the teacher's role in modelling and scaffolding children's use of language, and of what constitutes a "good discussion" among ch ildren. From this point, the concept of exploratory talk can be introduced. The next implementation phase involves teacher s carrying out initial activities with their classes in which they model exploratory talk and from which each class defines and agrees on their own version of ground rules that they go on to use in their discussions. An example of such ground rules is provided in Table 16.1. The children then pursue the rest of a specially designed program of lessons over a period ~f approximately 1Oweeks. As exemplified in Dawes, Mercer, and Wegenf (2000), these lessons have a consistent format in that teacher-led sessions and group-based activities are integrated and in which the ~on­ tent of activities is directly relat ed to various subjects of the prescnb~d school curriculum. Researchers make obs.ervations of clas~room activ~ ity throughout this process, as well as takmg pre- and postinvolvemen measures of children's capabilities in language use and reasoning. In the most recent project, the implementation phase involved a total of 1~6 111 children in the target schools, with a similar number of children matched control schools also being studied for comparison.

HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

Class S's Ground Rules for Talk

• • • • • •

All relevant inlormatlon is shared People give reasons !or their ideas and opinions People can challenge one another's proposals (ii th ey !eel th ey have good r eason) Alternatives are discussed belore a decision is taken All in the group are encouraged to speak by other group members The group seeks to reach agreement and takes joint responsibility !or decisions

COMPUTERS AS A FOCUS FOR JOINT LITERATE ACTIVITY Software That Encourages Discussion Included in the Thinking Together lessons described briefly above are several computer-based activities. Computer-based activities can provide a good focus for collaborative learning, as shown by a number of studies (Howe, Tolmie, & Mackenzie, 1996; Hoyles, Sutherland , & Healy,1990; Light & Littleton, 1999; Littleton & Light, 1999; Scrimshaw, 1993). Such activities have been found to be motivating and to provide a strong focus for group activity. However, classroom-based observational research by ourselves and colleagues revealed that much of the interact ion taking place at the computer in the British primary classrooms we surveyed during the early 1990s was not of any obvious educational value (Fisher, 1992, 1993; Mercer, 1992, 1994; Wegerif & Scrimshaw, 1997; see also Crook, 1994) . In most cases, the children observed were not discussing their ideas about work and showed little sign of learning from each other. It was common for one child to make all the decisions about how t o proceed while the others watched; or children adopted a competitive style and did not collaborate at all. Very little discussion resembling exploratory t alk was observed. One possible reason for this, as we have previously suggested, is that children lack a clear and relevant understanding of what they expected to do when asked to discuss or work together. But a second possible reason is the design of educational software and its appropriateness for stimulating thinking together or "interthinking." Software design can strongly influence the quality of group discussion , and research suggests that little of the software used in schools is actually well designed t o support group work or group discussion (Anderson, Tolmie, McAteer, & Demisne, 1993; Fisher, 1992; Wegerif, 1996, 1997). We have

25 2

i'vl ERCER ET AL.

responded to these factors in two main ways. First, we have designed some new items of software with featu res specifically calculated to encourage discussion. Second, we have embedded group-based computerbased activities in teacher-led lessons, intended to provide a clear, shared understanding among participants of how to talk and work effectively together. We will exemplify both these aspects in the next two subsections.

11

HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

253

Kate was worried. Should she tell her parents or not? Here are some of herthoughts .... Robe.111& Ainu - he stole the c/Joco/:ue.s for fJis sic/>

mother.

Exploratory Talk About N a rrative Some of the Thinking Together lessons are related to literacy development and include group-based activities concerned with the children's understanding of narratives. The aim is to help children move beyond a simple grasp of the story into a deeper consideration of the motives and consequences of the actions of characters and of other possible, hypothetical routes that a narrative could take. One of these, expressly designed for children aged 9 to 11 and also related to citizenship studies, is a computer-based activity called Kate's Choice (www.thinkingtogether.co.uk). The program introduces children to a girl called Kate, whose best friend Robert tells her a secret; he has stolen a box of chocolates from a shop near their school. He says that they are for his mother who is in the hospital. Robert begs Kate not to tell. She agrees, but subsequent events make it difficult for her to decide whether this promise should be kept. One fram e from Kate's Choice is shown in Fig. 11. l. The software design ensures that the children follow the narrative sequence, but at eac h main stage of its development they are able to interact with the program in two ways. First, they can ask characters involved in the story for their views about what Kate should do and what should happen to Robert. They then are asked to discuss whether or not they agree with these views. Second, they can write into t he story their own views on what Kate should do and how Robert's actions should be treated. The phrase "Talk together and decide .. . " on the computer screen (as shown in Fig. 11.l) prompts the children to talk about the alternative choices presented. So at each of several stages in the narrative, the children are asked to jointly consider relevant information at their disposal and the points of view of each of the characters involved before coming to a decision and proposing what should happen next. The task therefore involves the use of various kinds of language skills. Literate skills are required in reading the narrative, appreciating the perspectives of the characters involved , and projecting the narrative forward along hypothetical routes; oral skills are required in making proposals, presenting reasons, listening to the views of others, and resolving different points of view.

anyone.

Tait together and decide what Kate should do.

Tnen c11c1C on one or mese ouuons

[Does not tell her~rents) FIG. 11.1

Tells her parentS

]

A decision poinc in Kate's Choice.

Having d esigned Kate's Choice, the next step was evaluation. It is important to note that we did not evaluate this software in isolation but as an element of the Thinking Together curriculum activities. We wished to know whether the software was effective in generating a lively and focused discussion, but we also wanted to see whether the quality of discussion was affected by whether or not c hildren 's use of exploratory talk had been scaffolded by their teacher 's implementation of the Thinking Together approach. To do this, we observed and videorecorded two sets of children in primary classes in the city of Milton Keynes in southeast England. One set of children were those in target classes who had already taken part in Thinking Together lessons. Their talk was compared with ch ildren in control classes in similar local schools (matched for aspects of social catchment) who were given the software without any special preparation for discussion. The children all worked in mixed-gender and mixed-ability groups of 3. Our observations in control schools revealed talk of varying quality, but only very rarely did Kate's Choice generate an extended and lively

254

MERCER ET AL.

discussion. An extract from a typical discussion in a control school is included as Transcript 1. The children have reached the point in the narrative shown in Fig. l l. l. Transcript 1: Do That Jared: (Reads from screen) "Talk together and decide what Kate should do then click on one of the buttons." Tony: What should we do? Jared: Do that. (Jared points at the screen) Tony: (Turning to call the teacher) Excuse me. (Turning back to group) We don't know what to do. Effie: (Clicks mouse) Jared: Yes we do. (Total time: 42 sec) No members of this group react p ositively to the computer prompt, "talk together." One of them (Tony) even turns to the teacher to express his uncertainty about how to proceed from this instruction. This is a way in which many children in primary schools are likely to react if given such an activity. Effie, who happens to have the mouse, decides the choice for the group. This assumption of control goes unchallenged, and the group moves rapidly through the task rather than really considering the moral issues of the narrative. The opportunity to discover and consider each other's ideas is not pursued. For comparison, Transcript 2 is an extract from the discussion of a target-class group (who have had several weeks involvement in Thinking Together activities) at the same decision point in the narrative. Transcript 2: What do you think? Gary: Right we've got to talk about it. (T looks at S) Trish: What do you think? (T points at G) Sue: What do you think? Gary: I think even though he is her friend then um she shouldn't tell of him because em well she should tell of him em because was, was. if he's stealing it it's not worth having a friend that steals is it? Trish: No Why do you think that? Sue: Trish: We said why I think that one as well do you? (T points to the screen and looks at S) I think she should tell her parents Do you? (G looks at S) Gary: Trish: I think I'm I think even though he is her friend because he's stealing she shou ld still tell her parents and her parents might

11

Sue: Gary: Sue: Gary: Trish: Sue: Gary: Trish: Gary: Sue: Trish: Sue: Sue: Gary: (Total

HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

255

give h er the money and she might be able to go to the shop and give them the money I think um ... ... but then she's paying for the thing she stole so I think he should get the money anyway. He should have his ... I think that he should go and tell his mother. ... own mother Mum Even though she has promised? Because he's well you shouldn't break a promise really should you? What's it worth having a friend if he's going to steal? If he steals ... If you know he's stolen if she don't tell her parents then he will be getting away with it (T looking at S) It's not worth having a friend that steals is it? (3 sec pause) OK then (puts hand on mouse) Ain't worth it is it? Tells her parents (clicks mouse) Yeh go on time: 109 sec)

Here the instruction "Talk together and decide ... " elicits a very different kind o f response. This is not perfect exploratory talk; few extra reasons are given in support of the initial position taken by Gary, and it is hard to tell if Sue is persuaded by the reasoning or merely acquiesces to the strength of the majority view. But this discussion has some key features of exploratory t alk. The children ask each other for their views and give reasons to support them. They question each other's positions and consider alternatives carefully before taking a shared decision. They are implementing their agreed ground rules. The discussions of the talk in the two groups of Transcript l and Transcript 2 can be contrasted in terms of how this kind of activity might feed into subsequent writing assignments for the children involved. Asked to write an ending to the narrative, the members of the target group (Transcript 2) would each have the common knowledge newly created by their discussion as a literary resource. However, members of the control group (Transcr ipt 1) would have gained little such resource from their interaction. We have provided just two contrasting examples, but a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the discourse data, from both target and control schools (as described in more detail in Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999), showed that overall the t alk o f the target-class groups

256

MERCER ET AL.

11

was significantly more explorator y in nature than the talk of control groups. More precisely, children in target classes did more o f the following: • • •

• • •

Asked each other task-focused questions. Gave reasons for statements and challenges. Spen t more time (than cont rol groups) discussing the implications of characters' views and actions for th e narrative development. Considered more than one possible position before making a decision. Elicited opinions from all in t he group. Reached agreement before acting.

In contrast, the talk o f control groups showed more of the following features: • • • •

The child controlling the mouse made unilateral decisions. The choice of the most dominant chi ld was accepted without discussion. Arbitrary decisions were made without debating the alternatives. Chi ldren spent very little time at each decision point b efore moving on.

We concluded, therefore, t hat the Thinking Together lessons had encouraged more effective use of language as a tool for reasoning and had enabled children to develop effect ive ways of exploring a narrative text together. The Kate's Choice software had provided a good environment for exercising and developing these oral and literate language skills. Target groups responded to the talk prompts provided by the software as an opportunity to engage with one another's ideas in an exploratory manner. The software was used by the children as a tool for thinking together and not as a game in which speed of response is important. It supported pupils' engagement with each other's ideas and opinions.

Scaffo lding Ta lk a nd W rit ing Earlier in this chapter, we argued that teachers need to establish clear parameters for computer-based activities so that children know what is expected of them and what they might expect to learn from carrying them out. Teachers also need to model and scaffold the development of the kinds of language skills children are expected to use (here, we are adapting the notion of parental scaffolding developed by Wood, Bruner, & .

,

•

.

·-

...t-.-..... : .... -

,......,. ..... .:-1

____

I~.---.

•h'3

HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

257

Thinking Together research, we will now consider the teacher's role in scaffolding the development of two aspects of children's language use: their use of spoken language as a tool for thinking together and their ability to take account of the needs of an audience in composing written communications. We will illustrate the discussion by using examples from our research, in which groups of children in two schools communicated with each other electronically. Classes from two separate project schools (of children aged 10-11) were organized as paired groups, and the Oracle conferencing software Think.corn (2001) was used to set up an online forum for discussion between groups. Think.corn provides an online environment for sharing ideas and contributing text, data, or documents for discussion. Schools are provided with e-mail and conferencing links that comply with standards for Internet safety set by the UK government's Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2000). The groups' face-to-face and online discussions were focused on a specific collaborative writing task: the creation of a Web site about topics selected from their science curriculum. The following extract is an example of an initial contact written by one group to send to their partners.

HELLO! ... We are class SM which has fifteen children in it, eight boys and seven girls. We are excited about send ing you a message and we love reading your replies. We are hoping t hat we will be able to help each other w ith ou r Science subject after the Easter holidays .... Today in our talking lesson we have a group of three people being videoed. We don't know how they are getting on at the moment but we hope they have remembered all the talking lesson rules ....

The next extract is a response from the partner group, which poses questions to sustain the conversation and direct it toward their joint science activities.

Hello t here, we have received your message. Thank you for your short notice .... In our science lessons we are talking about mater ials. What are you talking about in science? We have mainly been talking about solids/ liquids/ gases.

The subsequent planning and creation of Web pages involved the use of two further commercially produced software packages that were '-·~rl~~•o.-1 '4.ti th

t h e use of T h in!,,..,...,.,.., 'rho loccAn nbnc fnr thic \.Vnrlt

258

MERCER ET AL.

provided teachers with a structure to encourage the children to apply and develop joint reasoning through exploratory writing as they undertook this task. The children used eMindMaps (1999) software to plan ideas and draw simple concept maps. These were shared with the partner group and comments were exchanged using Think.corn (200 1). The following extracts from the Teachers' Notes (as supplied to each teacher by the project team) for the relevant Thinking Together lesson illustrates what is required of the teacher. T he teacher is asked to model exploratory talk in the introductory session and to clarify aims at the start o f the group activity. As with all the Thinking Together activities, a closing teacher-led plenary is used to share experience amongst members of the class and clarify what should happen next.

Extracts from Teacher's Notes for concept map lesson Introductory plenary (whole class) Discuss with the class how to make comments about a concept map and suggest possible changes. Draw a concept map . ... Ask the children to make comments about the map and how il could be improved. Show them how to construct these comments in a positive way, e.g "We liked your idea about ... Do you think that a link showing ... might be a useful way to ... ? Can you explain the connection between ... ?" Write some of these comments together. Group work Remind them of the ground rules for talk. Ask the groups to look at their partner group's concept map. Then they should talk together to agree on some comments. Can they think o f a question to ask about it? Can they make a suggestion about how it might be changed? Plenary The purpose of this plenary session is to create a class concept map that incorporates contributions from all of th e groups.... Ask each group in turn to suggest one of their id eas and to explain its relationships. Each group could also explain one part of their partner group's map. As the contributions are made, record these o.nto the map. In this way the ch ildren will be able to see the rel at 1 0~­ ships between all o f the contributions. When the map is fini shed 1t should collate all the ideas from the groups.

11

llOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

2 59

In other lessons, before and after this one, teachers were also expected to remind chi ldren of their agreed ground rules (as described earlier in this chapter), and to encourage them to be used within the class and in their e-mail exchanges with the partner class, as they researched the content for their Web pages. An additional piece of software, SiteCentral (Cochard et al., 1999), was provided to enable children t o construct simple Web pages by using "drag and drop" techniques. The teachers and children who worked on this phase of the project encountered some practical problems, mainly related to the constraints of time and the abil ity to maintain ongoing contact with the partner class. These are common problems in comput er-based educational activity. But despite these difficulties, the teachers reported that they found the approach an exciting and motivating way to help their pupils engage in literate activit ies. They commented that children used talk effectively to carry out the activity using the ground rules and the support of the computer for planning, appraising, editing, and presenting work. The task appeared to be meaningful and motivating to the children , providing an authentic audience of supportive peers and opportunities to collaborate with them in a meaningful way. In the research previously described, we have given particular consideration to the way that language has been used by the children and teachers in the activities described, as children generate e-mail, concept maps, and Web pages (Fernandez, 2001). Here, we will concentrate on the t eacher's role in enabling children to work together effectively in using electronic commu nications and in developing their literacy skills. Transcript 3 illustrates a group of Year 5 children in a target school being helped by a teacher to revise a paragraph from an e-mail about "How to have a healthy human body," which is to be sent to a group in their partner school. Transcript 3: Working well Teacher: Right. Somebody is going to read this to me now. Declan: "Dear Springdale. In Science we are looking at the healthy human body. We need a lot of exercise to keep our muscles, hearts and lungs working." Samia: "Working well." Dec Ian: " Working well. It also keeps our bones strong." Samia: Yeah. We don 't need a full stop. Teacher: Yeah. That's fine. Th at's all right. Carry on. "Flies .. .' Declan: "Flies and other animals can spread diseases and germs. That is why it is very important to keep food stored in clean cupboards, et cetera."

260

MERCER ET AL.

Is cupboards spelled wrong? (It is written "cubourds'') Eva: Teacher: Yes, it is spelled wrong actually. It is cup-boards. Cup-boards. (reading as teacher writes) B-0-A-R-D-S. Samia: Teacher: It's a difficult word: C-U-P cup, and then you've got the OU makes an "ow" sound. But it's OA, boards. Eva: 0 , A. Teacher: OK. Can I ask you a question? And et cetera is ETC, not ECT. I want to ask you a question before you carry on. So why have you felt it is important as a group to send Springdale this information?

(Several children speak together) Teacher: Just a minute. Let's have one answer at a time. Cause if they haven't done it yet. We can give them the Samia: infor mation ... Yeah. Teacher: that we have found in the book and so when they do getSamia: when they do this par t they will know, they will know, so, to answer it. Teacher: OK. Excellent. So what were you going to say Declan? So they can have a healthy body and they can use it for Declan: information. Teacher: OK. And plus, if they haven't got the books. Eva: if they haven't got the books. Now before you tell me And Teacher: anything else you've found in a book, I think, don't know what you think, do you think it would be a good idea t o tell them why you are ... what you've just explained to me? We are sending you this information because ... Just because, we couldn't find , something like ... Samia: They cou ld be doing it right now. Declan: Teacher: Well, they might be. We are sending you this piece of information just in case you Samia: haven't done it yet, to help you. Teacher : Right, discuss it how you want to say that. OK? We can see how the teacher supports the children by providing the requested spelling of "cupboards" and "et cetera." However, her intervention has other pedagogic functions. We might note that she generates the fam iliar initiation-response-feedback (IRF) pattern of classroom discourse (Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975); but this is not used to test children's curriculum knowledge, it is used

11

HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

26 1

to stimulate their reasoning. ' She asks them to clarify the ideas to be written in the paragraph and about the purpose of sending information to the other school. She reminds them to take turns when giving their opinions. She encour ages them to achieve an agreement before finishing what they want to write. She can therefore be seen here as scaffolding learning by orientating ch ildren's attention toward the aims of their e-mail, maintaining the focus of ch ildren as they work toward producing effective text, as well as helping with more prosaic features of the task such as correct spelling. With this support, the children are able to consider and complete their message. The teacher 's intervention t riggers the children's collective thinking. She stimulates discussion, which allows them to express t heir ideas both orally and in their written text. We can see this in the part of the discussion initiated by the t eacher asking the ch ildren: "So why have you felt it is impor tant as a group to send Spr ingdale this information?" Aft er t his question, the children provid e reasons for writing this paragraph such as " ... they can use it for information" and " ... if they haven't got the books." The next example, Transcript 4, provides an extract from the later talk of the same group of children as they put together the final version of this e-mail. One of them has left the group at the beginning of the segment and returns by the end. Transcript 4: Adding Our Names Declan: Do you want to read it? Samia: "Dear ... You listen, I read it. (to Dec/an) You can see what changes we can make. OK? (reading) "Dear Springdale School. In science we are looking at the healthy human body. We need a lot of exercise to keep our muscles, heart and lungs working well. It also keeps our bones strong. Flies and other animals can spread diseases and germs. That is why it is very important to keep food stored in clean cupboards, etc. We are sending this information to you just in case you haven't done it yet. We got this information from a book called Child's first book of human body on page 44. If you have not got t his book" Declan: [This book Samia: You might find it in a library close to you. (begins typing) From Declan, Samia and Eva. Declan: Eva hasn't agreed with it. Why is Eva taking a long time? 1 We have argued elsewhere that critics o f teacher's frequent use of IRF exchanges rarely recognize th e variety of pragmatic functions they can serve (see Mercer, 2001).

262

MERCER ET AL.

Samia: Let's just write it, yeah? Then we can share what we've read. Declan: We can write it down and don't send it. And then if Eva doesn't li ke, we can just delete it. Samia: Yeah, t hat's r ight Declan. Declan: Don't send it ti ll Eva comes back. Samia: Wr ite your name. Deelan: (typing) Done. Samia: We are. (Eva arrives) Do you think it is a good idea to write, to w r ite, from Declan, Samia and Eva? Eva: Yes. In the above sequence we see the children revising what they have written. The effects of the teacher's intervention on the content of their message is apparent. They use t heir ground rules for talk to help them through this process. Samia reads the message aloud, breaking off to ask Declan to listen carefully and to suggest changes t hey could make. Once t hey have read their t ext, the children decide to add their names at the end. However, one of the group (Eva) is not there to endorse this decision. The others agree to w rite their names and wait for her return. By doing this, they are consciously implementing one of the ground r ules of exploratory talk, "Do we all agree?" Once Eva returns and agrees with the proposal, t he children are ready to send t he e-mail to their par tner group. Collaborative writing is a very complex process t hat depends on t he contr ibutions and cognitive resources that each child cont ributes. When there is a teacher helping t he children to achieve the goal of producing a p iece of text, she scaffolds the process by revising w ith the children what they have written so far, giving t hem feedback and suggestions, and triggering ideas about how to continue. When the talktutored group o f ch ildren are wor king alone they can rely on t he way they are able to use language as a tool for collective thinking to overcome problems and complete their text. By following the ground rules of exploratory talk they create a linguistic scaffolding that has similar functions to the pedagogic scaffolding provided by a teacher. In this way, it is possible for groups of children to collaborate effectively and produce a written text with which they are all satisfied.

11

HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

263

organizing individualized learning activities but as a distinctive tool for focusing and stimulating j oint intellectual activity. It may be true that many tasks presented on a computer screen can also be given to children as a "paper-and-pencil" version. However, we have found that because computers motivate children and hold their attention, and because activities can be carefully structured through software design, they have a distinctive and valuable role. Moreover, one special feature of computers makes them particularly suitable for stimulating discussion: their potentially infinite patience. Having been asked a question by a computer, children can sit back from the screen and consider thei r response at length. Of course, computer-based tasks are sometimes t imed, with users being encouraged to respond as quickly as possible. But this is an arbitrary and easi ly modifiable feature, quite different from the social norms and imperatives that shape human interaction. Because the computer is a machi ne, chi ldren can make it wait u ntil they are ready to respond in a way that would not normally be appropriat e if they had been asked a question by a teacher or other h uman conversational partner. A pair or group of children who are asked by a computer to provide a solution to a problem can discuss their possible response at length before keying it in. Yet the computer can also organize the process of joint activity more effectively than paper text. It can be programmed to require that children provide some response before being allowed to continue; it can offer alternative, nonlinear routes of p rogress, remind children of relevant information, and provide feedback on their responses. Used in this way, it can help scaffold children's learning while allowing them control over the pace of their activity, embodying a sociocultural model of teaching and learning that transcends both transmission teaching and discovery learning to enable "the guided construction of knowledge" (Mercer, 1995). We have focused in this chapter on just two types of computer-based activity, but our research allowed us to judge whether or not a range of software being used in classrooms was enabling and encouraging productive discussion (see also Wegerif, 1997; Wegerif & Dawes, 2004). The general conclusion that we draw is that software, which is well suited for encouraging productive discussion, is likely to offer at least several of the following features:

C ONCLU SION

• We began this chapter by explaining that our Thinking Together research takes a particular, sociocultural perspective on teaching and learning. T his perspective influences our view of the role o f computers in the development of children's language skills. Computers are not seen simply as a source of relevant information or as a means for

• •

Activities include problems that involve the rational consideration of available information and that are sufficiently complex to benefit from being analyzed through joint reflection and discussion. Problems and choices are embedded in a motivating narrative. A clear pur pose for the activity is made evident to participants and is kept in focus throughout.

264 • • • •

11

MERCER ET AL.

On-screen prompts remind participants to talk together and encourage them to make predictions, proposals, and reasons explicit. Information that can be used for reasoning about decisions is clearly presented on the screen. Instructions do not encourage rapid decision making, competition within the group, or serial turn-taking. Unless the task is expressly concerned with writing development, responses should require simple keystroke responses rather than extensive typing (as this tends to damage the pace and continuity of discussion).

We also drew on our own and others' investigations to try to specify conditions that would favor the emergence of exploratory talk in groupbased classroom activities (at the computer and elsewhere). Our conclusion was that the most productive activities were likely to have several of the following features: 1. Partners must have to talk to complete the activity, rather than con-

versation being merely an optional or incidental accompaniment. 2. The activity should be designed to encourage cooperation, rather than competition, between partners. 3. The activity should stretch participants' skills and understanding, but be within the possibilities of their achievement. 4. Partners should begin with a clear, shared understanding of the point and purpose of the activity. 5. Partners should have some initial meta-awareness of how talk can be used for sharing ideas and solving problems effectively. Our research has identified three related factors that are important for determining the educational value of joint activities at the computer: 1. Th e teacher's preparation and structuring of the activity to create the conditions for educationally effective interaction between computers and learners. 2. The ability of the learners to interact effectively through talk or online communication and their understanding that this is a critical aspect of the activity. 3. The design of the software as a stimulus and frame for joint activity. We have exemplified the use of suitably designed computer-based activities for developing children's use of spoken and written language and shown how these activities can integrate oracy and literacy activity in educationally productive ways. Appropriate software can provide the

I !OW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

265

basis for literacy events in which children jointly make sense of texts and learn to use new registers and genres. In this way, computer-based activities can help to induct children into the "ways with words," which they will need to achieve educational success and active participation in many aspects of social life. But we have argued that the educational value of computer-based activities involving discussion and interaction is only likely to be realized if, in advance, teachers raise children's understanding of how to use language effectively as a tool for thinking together. We do not envisage computers ever offering the kind of guidance for the development of children's language skills that a teacher can provide. Rather, we see computers as providing teachers and learners with an additional, distinctive, and valuable tool for the joint construction of knowledge. REFERENCES Anderson, A., Tolmie, A., McAteer, E., & Demisne, A. (1993) Software style and interaction around the microcomputer. Computers and Education, 2~3), 235-250. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977) Learning and communication in small groups. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. ( 1995) Communication and learning revisited. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Barton, D. ( 1994) Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell. Cochard , S. et al. (1999). SiteCentral (ver. 1.0) (Windows platform]. El Cajon, CA: Wagner Publishing. Crook, C. ( 1994) . Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London and New York: Routledge. Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking together: Activities for teachers and children at Key Stage 2. Birmingham, AL: Questions Publishing. DfES. (2000). DfES superhighway safety: Safe use of the Internet. Sudbury, Suffolk, England: DfES Publications. Available at http://safet y.ngfl.gov.uk Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987) Common knowledge: The development of understanding in th e classroom. London: Methuen/ Routledge. eMindmaps (ver. 2.0.7) [Windows platform]. (1999). Sausalito, CA: MindJET. Fernandez, M. (200 1, August). Collaborative writing of hypermedia documents and th e social construction of knowledge. Paper presented at the 9th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction: Bridging Instruction to Learning, Fribourg, Switzerland. Fisher, E. (1992). Characteristics of children's talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software. Language and Education, 7(2), 212-250. Fisher, E. ( 1993). Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their relationship to learning: How discursive exploration might be encouraged. Language and Education, 7(4), 239-257. Gallon, M., & Williamson, J. (1992) Group work in the primary classroom. London: Routledge.

266

MERCER ET AL.

lleath, S. B.(1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press. Howe. C., Tolmie, A .. & Mackenzie. M. (1996). Computer support for the collaborative learning of Physics concepts. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Comput ersupportecl collaborative learning (pp. l 68-183). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hoyles, C.. Sutherland. R.. & Healy, I. (1990) Children talking in compu ter environments: New insights on the role of discussion in mathematics learning. In K. Durkin & B. Shine (Eds.). Language and mathematics education (pp. 162-175). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. Leu. D. J.. Kinzer, C. K.. Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unruh (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of r eading (Sth ed., pp. 1570-16 13). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Light, P.. & Littleton, K. ( 1999) Social processes in child r en's l earning. Cambrid ge, England: Cambridge University Press. Littleton, K .. & Light, P. ( 1999). Leaming with computers: Analysing productive inter acti on. London: Routledge. Mehan, H. ( 1979). Leaming lessons: Social organization in the classr oom. Cambri dge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mercer, N. ( 1992). Culture, context, and the construction of knowledge in the classroom. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Cont ext and cognition: Ways of l earning and knowing (pp. 37-51). Hemel Hempstead, England: HarvesterWheatsheaf. Mercer. N. (1994). The quality o f talk in children's joint activity at the computer. Journ.1/ of Computer Assisted Learning, 10. 24-32. Mercer, N. ( 1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and Je,1rners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mercer, N. (2000). \Vorcls and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge. Mercer. N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal. 25(1), 95-1 11. Norman. K. (Ed.). ( 1992) . Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Pailliotet, A. W., & Mosenthal, P. (Eds.). (2000). Reconceptualising lit eracy in the media ,1ge. Stamforcl,CT: JA!. Rassool, N. ( 1999). Uteracy for sustainabl e development in th e age of information. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Scrim shaw, P. (Ed.). ( 1993). Language. classrooms ancl computers. London: Routledge. Sheeran. Y., & Barnes, D. ( 199 1) School writing: Discovering t/1e ground rules. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. ( 1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford Un iversity Press. Street, B. ( 1983). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambrid ge University Press. Street, B. (Eel.). ( 1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

11

HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP

26 7

Think.com (ver. 1.0) [Windows platform). (200 I). Redwood Shores. CA: Oracle Corporation. Available al http://www.think.com Vygots!,.'Y, L. S. ( 1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Riber & A. S. Carton (Eels.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. I: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum. (Ori ginally published 1934) Wegerif. R. (1996). Collaborative learning and directive software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 12. 22-32. Wegerif, R. (1997). Factors affecting the quality of children's talk at computers. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eels.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 177-1 89). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Wegerif, R., & Dawes. L. (2004). Thinking and learning with JCT: Raising achievement in primary classrooms. London: Routledge. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N.. & Dawes. L. ( 1999). From social interaction to individual reason ing: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive developmen t. Lec1r11ing and Instruction, 9(5), 493-516. Wegerif, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (Eds.). ( 1997). Computers and ta lk in the pr ima1y classroom. Clevedon. England: Multilingual Matters. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inq uiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Carn bridge, England: Cambrid ge University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. ( 1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. .Journal of Chi/cl Psychology and Chile/ Psychiatry. 1 7, 89-100.