Yuill, Nicola; Pearce, Darren; Kerawalla, Lucinda; Harris, Amanda and Luckin, Rosemary
PDF (Not Set)
- Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
|DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:||http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01384.x|
|Google Scholar:||Look up in Google Scholar|
Two studies assessed the role of Separate Control of Shared Space (SCoSS) technology in supporting peer collaborative discussion and comprehension. We hypothesised that providing equitable shared input to two literacy tasks (both good predictors of comprehension skill) would support discussion to promote the joint construction of meaning, and hence individual progress. Study 1: 50 7-9-year-olds took a reading-specific multiple classification (RMC) pre-test, categorising words on two dimensions, before training on the task in pairs using SCoSS, dual-control or individual technology. Discussion produced more accurate post-test classification performance and SCoSS was associated with higher frequency of statements during training that combined both RMC dimensions (surface form and meaning of words). Study 2: 12 8-9-year-olds were pre-tested on story recall and worked in pairs on a SCoSS-supported story construction task, requiring collaborative inference-making, hypothesis generation and selection. Post-test story recall was predicted by the frequency of deductive causal statements during training. We discuss how technology can be used to promote collaboration and discussion that supports joint understanding and individual comprehension development.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Copyright Holders:||2009 United Kingdom Literacy Association|
|Academic Unit/Department:||Education and Language Studies|
|Interdisciplinary Research Centre:||Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology (CREET)
|Depositing User:||Users 9 not found.|
|Date Deposited:||17 Feb 2009 15:34|
|Last Modified:||04 Mar 2016 16:38|
|Share this page:|
Download history for this item
These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.