Collaborative Writing and Self Confidence among Vocational Education Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58213/ell.v2i2.24Keywords:
vocational education and training, written peer feedback, computer-supported collaborative learning, self-efficacyAbstract
Almost universally, professional development courses combine classroom and real-world training. Students in vocational education have trouble combining the formal explicit information they learn in school with the informal tacit knowledge they learn on the job. There will be an investigation into the role of writing and peer cooperation in articulating conceptual and experiential knowledge during this design research project. At a school for social and health care assistants, 40 first- and second-year students wrote about real-world experiences, shared them with their peers, and participated in written and spoken conversations with their classmates and the teacher. It was made possible for participants to collaborate and write on the web using a wiki, a web-based platform for collaborative writing. Study results indicate that first-year students developed a lot of self-assurance, but sophomores performed less well on a competency assessment. Its collaborative character was also a big hit with students. The discussion focuses on the creation of writing and peer feedback-based learning activities for students to explain their intellectual and experiential knowledge.
References
• Ackerman, J. M. (1993). The Promise of Writing to Learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334– 370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010003002
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
• Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares& T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and Education, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy Beliefs in Adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, C.T.: Information Age Publishing.
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement : A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
• Bereiter, C., &Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361- 392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the Workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.
• Billett, S., Fenwick, T, & Somerville, M. (2006). Work, sujectivity and learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5360-6
• Davies, P. (2002). Using student reflective self-assessment for awarding degree classifications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 307–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13558000210161034
• De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2011). Assessing collaboration in a wiki: The reliability of university students’ peer assessment. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 201–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.003
• Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X032001005
• Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),Collaborative learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier. Dillenbourg, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Basics of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.ZeitschriftFürBerufs-Und Wirstchaftspädagogik, 21, 111–130.
• Dillenbourg, P., &Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine& I.M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 525–551). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419- 5716-0_26
• Dochy, F. J. R. C., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 279–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86211-6
• Filliettaz, L. (2010). Dropping out of apprenticeship programs : Evidence from the Swiss vocational education system and methodological perspectives for research. International Journal of Training Research, 8(2), 141–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/ijtr.8.2.141
• Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
• Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a Knowledge-Constituting Process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write. Conceptual process in text production. (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
• Galbraith, D. (2009) Writing as discovery. In, Connelly, Vincent, Barnett, Anna L., Dockrell, JulieE. and Tolmie, Andrew (eds.) Teaching and Learning Writing. Leicester, GB, British Psychological Society, 5-26.
• Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a wiki: Product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 585–594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.450
• Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., &Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
• Hämäläinen, R. & De Wever, B. (2013). Vocational education approach: New TEL settings—new prospects for teachers’ instructional activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(3), 271–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9176-1
• Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organisation of writing process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Herrington, J. (2012). Design-based research : Implementation issues in emerging scholar research. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunication. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
• Higgs, J., & Jones, M. (2000). Clinical reasoning in the health professions. In J. Higgs & M. Jones (Eds.), Clinical reasoining in the health professions (pp. 3–14). Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.
• Jermann, P., &Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers and Education, 51(3), 279–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.012
• Kaufmann, J. H., &Schunn, C. D. (2010). Students’ perception about peer-assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 39(3), 387–406.
• King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mendl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York, NJ: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_2
• Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning.Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
• Kumar, S., & Hsiao, J. (2007). Engineers Learn “Soft Skills the Hard Way”: Planting a Seed of Leadership in Engineering Classes. Leadership & Management In Engineering, 7(1), 18-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2007)7:1(18)
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. In R. Pea & J.S. Brown (Eds.)Learning in doing (Vol. 95, p. 138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
• Ludvingsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., &Säljö, R. (2011). Learning Across Sites. New tools, infrastructures and practices. New York, NJ: Routledge.
• Mann, K., Gordon, J., & Macleod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in the health professions education: a systematic review. Advances in Health Science Education, 14, 259– 621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2
• Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Ortoleva, G., Schneider, D., Bétrancourt, M. (2013). Utilisation d’un wiki pour l’écriture collaborative et le partage d’expérienceen formation professionnelleinitiale. In C. Choquet,
• P. Dessus, M. Lefevre, J. Broisin, O. Catteau, & P. Vidal (Eds.), EnvironnementsInformatiques pour l’ApprentissageHumain. Actes de la conférence EIAH 2013 (pp. 17-28). Toulouse: IRIT Press 2013.
• Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a Teaching Tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57–72.
• Puntambekar, S., Erkens, G., &Hmelo-Silver, C. (2011). Analyzing Interactions in CSCL: Methods, Approaches and Issues. New York, NJ: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6 Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., &Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Scanlon, E. (2011). Analyzing productive interactions in CSCL: collaboration, computers and contradictions. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analysing Interactions in CSCL: Methods, Approaches and Issues (pp. 319–339). New York, NJ: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6_15
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into the world. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrative cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrative Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Boos.
• Schluter, J., Seaton, P., &Chaboyer, W. (2008). Critical incident technique: a user’s guide for nurse researchers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(1), 107–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2648.2007.04490.x
• Spada, H., Stahl, G., Miyake, N., & Law, N. (2011). Introduction to the proceedings of CSCL 2011. In H. Spada, , G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Research to Policy and Practice. Proceedings of the international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning CSCL 2011. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
• Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning : An historical perspective. Learning, 409–426.
• Stenström, M.-L., &Tynjälä, P. (2009). Towards integration of work and learning: strategies for connectivity and transformation. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020- 8962-6
• Suthers, D. D. (2006) Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-supported collaborative learning. 1(3), 315–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9660-y
• Tynjälä, P. (1998). Writing as a tool for constructive learning : Students’ learning experiences during an experiment. Higher Education, 209–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:100326 0402036
• Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001
• Tynjälä, P., &Gijbels, D. (2012). Changing world: Changing pedagogy. In P. Tynjälä, M.-L. Stenström, & M. Saarnivaara (Eds.), Transitions and transformations in learning and education (pp. 205–222). Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2312-2_13
• Tynjälä, P., Häkkinen, P., &Hämäläinen, R. (2014). TEL@work - towards integration of theory and practice. British Journal of Educational Technology. 45(6), 990–1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12164
• Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., &Lonka, K. (2001). Writing As a Learning Tool: Integrating Theory and Practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-010-0740-5
• van der Bijl, J.J., Shortridge-Baggett, L.M. (2001). The theory and measurement of the self-efficacy construct. Scholarly Inquiery for Nursing Practice, 15(3), 189–207.
• van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1804–1817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.001
• van Gennip, N. a. E., Segers, M. S. R., &Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010
• Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
• Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
