Reflection is an important aspect of learning in groups. In collective moments of reflection, learners can share and compare their ideas with others, and by doing so can reach an articulated and personal understanding of a learning task and domain. In the research presented here, e-mail is examined as a means for reflection in the context of group learning. In two design experiments, an e-mail tool is developed that seeks to (1) support collective reflection, and (2) overcome practical problems related to e-mail use in primary classrooms. Two prototypes of the tool are presented and tested in five primary classrooms. We conclude that e-mail supports collective reflection on a learning task after adding the following supportive measures to the regular e-mail program: (1) a fixed partnership, (2) fixed timing, (3) an exercise of individual freewriting, and (4) collective use of a paper worksheet.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarabS., & SquireK. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
2.
BaronN. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of e-mail. Language & Communication, 18, 133–170.
3.
BereiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
BlairK. L. (1996). Microethnographies of electronic discourse communities: Establishing exigency for e-mail in the professional writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 13, 85–91.
5.
BoudD.KeoghR., & WalkerD. (1985). What is reflection in learning? In BoudD.KeoghR., & WalkerD. (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 7–17). London: Kogan Page.
6.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
7.
BrownR. A. J., & RenshawP. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In CowieH. & van der AalsvoortG. (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
8.
CheungW. S., & HewK. F. (2004). Evaluating the extent of ill-structured problem solving process among pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion and reflection log learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(3), 197–227.
9.
CohenM., & RielM. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students' writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143–159.
10.
CohenA., & ScardamaliaM. (1998). Discourse about ideas: Monitoring and regulation in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1–2), 93–113.
11.
De VriesB. (2004). Opportunities for reflection: E-mail and the web in the primary classroom. PhD Thesis. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
12.
DystheO. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interactions of writing and classroom discourse. Written Communication, 13(3), 385–425.
13.
ElbowP. (1973). Writing without teachers.New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
GoldbergA.RussellM., & CookA. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 2(1). Retrieved April 30, 2004, from http://www.jtla.org
15.
JanssenF. J. J. M. (1999). Ontwerpend leren in het biologie-onderwijs—Uitgewerkt en beproefd voor immunologie in het voortgezet onderwijs [Learning-by-designing in biology—Developed and tested for the topic of immunology in secondary education]. Utrecht: CD-|3 Press.
16.
KafaiY. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children's learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KravtsovaE. E. (1999). Preconditions for developmental learning activity at pre-school age. In HedegaardM. & LompscherJ. (Eds.), Learning activity and development (pp. 290–310). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
19.
KumpulainenK. (1996). The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 243–261.
20.
KyzaE. A., & EdelsonD. C. (2003). Reflective inquiry: What it is and how can software scaffolds help. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Chicago, IL. Retrieved April 30, 2004, from http://www.letus.org
21.
LinX.HmeloC.KinzerC. K., & SeculesT. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(3), 43–62.
22.
LompscherJ. (1999). Learning activity and its formation: Ascending from the abstract to the concrete. In HedegaardM. & LompscherJ. (Eds.), Learning activity and development (pp. 139–166). Aahus: Aarhus University Press.
23.
LovelessA. (2003). Creating spaces in the primary curriculum: ICT in creative subjects. The Curriculum Journal, 14(1), 5–21.
24.
MarttunenM., & LaurinenL. (2002). Quality of students' argumentation by e-mail. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 99–123.
25.
MasonL. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305–329.
26.
MasonL., & BoscoloP. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes?Instructional Science, 28, 199–226.
27.
McKeonC. A. (1999). The nature of children's e-mail in one classroom. The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 698–706.
28.
MurphyC. (2003). Report 5: Literature review in primary science and ICT. NESTA Futurelab Series.
29.
NieveenN. (1999). Prototyping to reach product quality. In van den AkkerJ.BranchR. M.GustafsonK.NieveenN., & PlompT. J. (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 125–136). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
30.
RielM. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic learning circles. Instructional Science, 19, 445–466.
31.
RielM. M., & LevinJ. A. (1990). Building electronic communities: Success and failure in computer networking. Instructional Science, 19, 145–169.
32.
RivardL. P., & StrawS. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.
33.
RowleyK., & MeyerN. (2003). The effect of a computer tutor for writers on student writing achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(2), 169–187.
34.
SealeJ. K., & CannA. J. (2000). Reflection on-line or off-line: The role of learning technologies in encouraging students to reflect. Computers & Education, 34, 309–320.
35.
SmithC. D.WhiteleyH. E., & SmithS. (1999). Using e-mail for teaching. Computers & Education, 33, 15–25.
36.
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
37.
TichenorM. S., & JewellM. J. (2001). Using e-mail to write about math. The Educational Forum, 65(4), 300–308.
38.
Van BoxtelC.Van der LindenJ., & KanselaarG. (1997). Collaborative construction of conceptual understanding: Interaction processes and learning outcomes emerging from a concept mapping and a poster task. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 341–361.
39.
Van der MeijH., & BoersmaK. (2002). E-mail use in elementary school: An analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189–200.
40.
Van der MeijH.de VriesB.PietersJ. M.BoersmaK. Th., & WegerifR. (2005). An examination of interaction coherence in e-mail use in elementary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 417–439.
41.
Van der MeijH.Van GraftM., & BoersmaK. (2001). Integrating e-mail use in design & technology lessons. Internal report.
42.
WardekkerW. (1998). Scientific concepts and reflection. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(2), 143–153.
43.
WeiserbsB. (2000). Social and academic integration using e-mail between children with and without hearing impairments. Computers in the Schools, 16(2), 29–44.
44.
YostN. (2000). Electronic expressions: Using e-mail to support emergent writers. Computers in the School, 16(2), 17–28.
