This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC]On: 18 November 2014, At: 07:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Using Online Peer Dialogue Journaling to PromoteReflection in Elementary Preservice TeachersJiening Ruan a & Sara Ann Beach aa University of Oklahoma , USAPublished online: 03 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Jiening Ruan & Sara Ann Beach (2005) Using Online Peer Dialogue Journaling toPromote Reflection in Elementary Preservice Teachers, Action in Teacher Education, 27:3, 64-75, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2005.10463391

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463391

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Using Online Peer Dialogue Journaling to Promote Reflection in Elementary Preserwice Teachers Jiening Ruan University of Oklahoma

Sara Ann Beach University of Oklahoma

ABSTRACT: This case study investigates the effectiveness of online peer dialogue journaling. The authors developed this learning strategy for elementary pseservice teachers to reflect on their tutoring experiences and to provide support to their journal partners using an Internet discus- sion forum. The participants were asked to fill in two questionnaires, before and after they par- ticipated in writing online peer dialogue journals. The journal entries posted by the participants were also collected. The findings suggest that most participants responded favorably to this strategy. It facilitates technology integration, promotes interactive learning, and supports re- flective practices in the dialogic form. The authors also raise several issues that need to be fur- ther addressed by teacher educators.

The past two decades have witnessed an in- creasing push for linking technology to liter- acy education. Literacy and technology are no longer viewed as two separate entities. Teach- ing students to read and write effectively in a communication technology/lnternet environ- ment is an important future direction for liter- acy education (Selfe, 1999). There is a de- mand that teacher education programs infuse technology into education to produce future teachers who can use technology effectively (International Reading Association, 2002; US . Department of Education, 1995).

However, many teachers do not consider it a priority nor do they feel comfortable using technology to support teaching and learning (Firek, 2003). In a recent nationwide study by Block, Oakar, and Hurt (ZOOZ), results showed

that in spite of increasing emphasis on tech- nology use, technology integration was not listed by the expert teachers or the administra- tors as a desired quality for effective teaching of reading. Fisher, Lapp, and Flood (2000) in- vestigated technology use in elementary and middle school literacy classrooms, and they found that “primary-grade teachers were less concerned, had less confidence, and used tech- nology less” (p. 473).

Teacher education programs are criticized by some educators for their lack of success in preparing preservice teachers for effective use of technology to support teaching and learn- ing. Neither is technology integration mod- eled consistently and effectively in teacher education programs (Cuhan, 1999; Faison, 1996). As a result, inany preservice teachers

Address correspondence to Jiening Ruan, University of Oklahoma, College of Education, 820 Van Vleet Oval, Room 114, Norman, OK 73019 E-mail Jruan@ou edu

Action In Teuchrr Educution Vol 27, No 3 64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Online Peer Dialogue Journaling 65

feel inadequate about the integration of com- puter technology in the curriculum and have insufficient knowledge about using technology to support student learning in classrooms (Fai- son, 1996; NCATE, 1997; Northrup & Little, 1996). To help future teachers meet the chal- lenge posed by the information age, it is impor- tant that teacher educators be good role models by infusing technology effectively in teacher education courses. Also important is that tech- nology should be integrated into teacher educa- tion programs in meaningful and purposeful ways (Cuban, 1999; Pope & Golub, 2000).

Teacher Reflection

One of the most important goals of teacher ed- ucation is to support preservice teachers in be- coming professionals who can critically exam- ine their own thinking and action (Carter, 1998). Reflection is an experience-based process for exploring issues of concern, and it can lead to changes in understandings, con- ceptual perspectives, and future actions (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Boyd &. Fales, 1983). Reflection on teaching experiences could im- prove the teacher learning process (Richard- son, 1990) and produce “more skilled, more capable, and in general better teachers” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996, p. xvii). Those who are constantly engaged in reflective practices are better teachers (Schon, 1983; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Pressley, Allington, Wharton- McDonald, Block, and Morrow (2001) also found that a major characteristic of highly ef- fective literacy teachers is that they are more reflective than their colleagues.

Nevertheless, several teacher educators point out that there is a severe lack of studies on reflection in literacy education (Kasten & Padak, 1997; Roskos, Vukelich, & Risko, 2001). Bean and Stevens (2000) also brought our attention to a need for future research that defines and contextualizes the role of reflec- tion in learning how to teach reading. Such research should also explore the various meth- ods that support and promote reflection.

Currently, the common methods used to promote reflection among preservice teachers

are personal journals, portfolios, case studies, and autobiographies (Roskos et al., 2001). Many teacher education courses require that students write personal reflective journals on course content and university- and school- based field experiences.

The benefits of journal writing for preser- vice teachers have been substantiated by many researchers (Black, Sileo, & Prater, 2000; Sil- berman, 1996; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). When engaging in journal writing, preservice teachers are compelled to examine and ration- alize their thinking and experiences, and therefore become more reflective. Journal writing could also help preservice teachers re- flect on their previous beliefs and consider other beliefs and ideas (Carter, 1998).

However, traditional journal writing has its limitations. In his study, Carter (1998) found that journal writing did not help pre- service teachers become more receptive to other people’s perspectives. In addition, due to its wide use in teacher education, some pre- service teachers consider journal writing a bor- ing exercise while others used it as a forum for venting or expressing “blatant bigotry and prejudice” (Anderson, 1993, p. 306).

In an extensive review of reflection stud- ies in literacy education, Roskos et al. (2001) raised further concern that teacher educators have a tendency to treat reflection as a per- sonal and private act. This phenomenon con- tradicts what we know about the social nature of learning. Many scholars emphasize the im- portance of establishing a discourse commu- nity for fostering reflective thinking among teachers (Putnam & Borko, 2000; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). To support reflective thinking and learning, Zeichner and Liston (1996) called for a classroom environment conducive to dialogue and conversation among preser- vice teachers with different perspectives. This is where technology can step in to fill the gap.

Technology-Supported Teacher Reflection

The latest advancement in technology pro- vides unprecedented opportunities for teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

66 JlENlNG RUAN AND SARA ANN BEACH

educators to support reflection in dialogic form. Computer-mediated communication af- fords convenience and flexibility and extends space for interaction. With online technology, students and instructors do not have to rely on face-to-face contact to communicate and/or interact with each other.

So far, most available research on technol- ogy-supported reflection tends to focus on how various forms of online discussion groups (e.g., structured vs. unstructured and asynchronous vs. synchronous) impact teacher reflection (e.g., Carboni, 1999; Edens, 2000; Wade IS Fauske, 2004). In general, it is found that a computer-mediated discussion group may help build a learning community where a group of learners coconstruct meaning about the reality of teaching and learning and their roles as teachers without the constraints of time and space. In addition, unlike oral communica- tion, online discussions are text based, thereby allowing more time for teachers to process thoughts and ideas of self and others (Lowry, Koneman, Osman-Jouchoux, IS Wilson, 1994; Wade &L Fauske, 2004). As a result, more in- depth and thoughtful reflection could occur. If organized well, online discussion can effec- tively elicit rich reflection on teaching, leam- ing, and some other broader issues related to teaching and learning (Harrington &L Quinn- Leering, 1996).

However, several drawbacks have been noted in previous research on how online coin- munication in a form similar to most Listservs could influence teacher reflection. Among them, technology glitches and student uneasi- ness about computer use are two major factors that prevent successful online communication (Edens, 2000). The unstructured nature of online discussion goups is also a fixtor that frequently leads to superficial comments and descriptions instead of reflective inquiry (Car- boni, 1999; Edens, 2000). Furthermore, lack of organization and fiacilitation in the online envi- ronment often results in uneven participation among the participants (Carboni, 1999). Edens (2000) noted that some students would do most of the postings while others contribute very lit-

tle. Carboni (1999) also observed that the facil- itator (university instructor) made half of the postings in her study, and the teacher partici- pants rarely initiated questions.

In sum, in light of our knowledge of teacher reflection, interactive learning, and technology integration, online technology has great potential to become a powerful tool that supports teacher reflection and inquiry. How- ever, existing literature also points to some pit- falls and to our limited understanding of technology-facilitated communication, a re- cently added but not well-understood dimen- sion of teacher education (Edens, 2000; Fet- terman, 1998; Windschitl, 1998). Exploring innovative ways of using technology to sup- port and promote teacher reflection could lead us to greater understanding about how we may meet “the critical need to develop models for analyzing dialogic processes in technology- mediated, community learning contexts” (Edens, 2000, p. 16) and allow us to be more effective in helping preservice teachers be- come reflective practitioners (Schon, 1983). Online peer dialog journaling is an example of such an effort.

Theoretical Framework

Socioconstructivist theory underlines the strategy of online peer dialogue journaling in- vestigated in this study. According to the so- cioconstructivist viewpoint (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), learning is a social process. Individuals actively construct knowledge in a social envi- ronment by interacting with the people around them, with t.heir peers, and with knowledgeable others. Language serves as an important medium though which support is given and learning is mediated.

The dialogic aspect of online peer dia- logue joumaling reported in this study ac- knowledges the importance of social interac- tion in preservice teachers’ construction of knowledge about teaching. Online peer dia- logue journaling also values the knowledge that preservice teachers have and allows them

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Online Peer Dialogue J o u d n g 67

to develop a learning partnership where they can seek support from and provide support to other learners in the learning community, thereby enhancing teacher reflection.

To conclude, current literature reveals a gap in our understanding of teacher reflection and its development through social interaction in the dialogic form. Issues about technology integration in preservice literacy education also demand more attention from researchers. Online peer dialogue journaling is an effort to address the above-mentioned concerns. Using this method, each preservice teacher has a self- chosen reflection partner who is also going through a similar challenging learning process. By asking the participants to select their own dialogue journal partners, the participants have a sense of control and ownership of this activ- ity. They are expected to write reflections with an audience in mind and also provide each other support throughout their clinical experi- ence. Therefore, active participation is more likely to be accomplished when compared with other forms of online communication. With the advantages that technology affords, they can also write without the constraints of time and location.

Most online communication and teacher reflection studies tend to focus on the effec- tiveness of the strategies or methods from the researcher/instructor’s perspective. In the pres- ent study, we are interested in finding out how preservice teachers view the strategy of online peer dialogue journaling, because research in motivation suggests that learning is maximized when learners find meaning and usefulness in the learning activity in which they are en- gaged. The purpose of this case study is to in- vestigate the attitudes and reactions of a group of preservice teachers toward online peer dia- logue journaling developed by the authors of this study to support teacher reflection and learning through technology integration. Two questions guided the study: (1) How do the preservice teachers view online peer dialogue journaling? and (2) Does online peer dialogue journaling support the preservice teachers in their reflection and learning?

Methods

Participants and Context of the Study

The participants in the study were 21 White female preservice teachers majoring in ele- mentary education or special education at a university in the southwestern part of the United States. They were in the beginning of their senior year and ranged in age between 2 1 and 30. They were enrolled in a required course titled “Evaluation of Literacy.” The course focused on theories and practices of lit- eracy assessment, evaluation, and instruction. The course also had a clinic component that allowed them to put theory into practice by working with struggling readers. It was the third in a series of four integrated literacy courses and was taught by Jiening Ruan. Prior to taking this course, the participants had taken their first two literacy courses, one in children’s literature and the other in theories, processes, and strategies for literacy develop- ment in grades K-8. The last literacy course in the sequence would focus on the organization and implementation of literacy programs in the classroom and school environment.

For most participants, the practicum of- fered them their first experience working with children with literacy difficulties. In the practicum, each preservice teacher learned to assess, evaluate, and support children’s literacy performance and progress by working with one at-risk reader for 9 weeks, 1 hour each week. Each was required to perform a set of assess- ment tasks at the beginning of the practicum experience. After completing the initial as- sessments, the preservice teacher planned and implemented several instructional lessons, tar- geting her student’s strengths and needs while continuing to assess and evaluate student learning as she engaged the student in various authentic learning experiences.

Both authors in this study were faculty members in readingfliteracy education. The first author (Ruan) was the course instructor who set up and negotiated the procedures of online peer dialogue journaling for the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

68 JlENlNG RUAN AND SARA ANN BEACH

participants to follow. She took a major role in data collection and analysis. The second au- thor (Beach) helped with the conception of the study design and data analysis.

Procedures

To help the participating preservice teachers become reflective practitioners, the course in- structor (Ruan) required weekly written re- flections after each tutoring session. Unlike a traditional journal assignment in which a pre- service teacher wrote to herself or the instruc- tor, in this study each person selected her own journal partner. Pairs, also called reflection dyads, were self-selected based on comfort working together and on the belief that they could provide mutual advice and support. Each person wrote a journal entry after each tutoring session, reflecting on what she had learned through the lesson she taught, and shared her journal with her partner. The part- ners were expected to provide feedback after reading their individual partners’ journal. The journal entries and responses were posted weekly on the “Message Board” of Coursenet, the Internet forum used at the university. This online forum is very similar to “Discussion Board” on Blackboard and “Discussions” on WebCT. Nine weekly reflection folders were created on Discussion Board for the 9-week practicum. The participants simply went to the folder of the week and posted their journal entries. Each posting had an author and time indicated. Once a reflection journal was posted, the partner could easily find the right journal entry to read and add her response to

it. A thread was therefore created. Prior to writing their first journal entries,

the preservice teachers brainstormed possible issues to discuss in their reflection journal as a class. The list included the following questions: How did the class go? What went well? What went wrong/not so well? What can I do to inake it better next week? How did my student respond to my teaching? What did I learn from this lesson? The class also negotiated a tiineline for journal posting and responding. They de- cided that reflection journals should be posted no later than one full day after the practicum session. The partner should then post her re-

sponses no later than four days after the jour- nals were posted so that the responses could be used to inform each other’s lesson planning for the coming week’s practicum session.

Prior to the implementation of online peer dialogue journaling, Ruan also brought the participants to a computer lab to demon- strate how to create a posting and a response on the Message Board. The participants prac- ticed the procedures under the instructor’s guidance until they felt comfortable with the technology. The instructor also told the par- ticipants that no instructor comments would be provided for the online posting because she did not want to interfere with the dialogue be- tween the partners in each reflection dyad. However, the instructor would read each jour- nal entry and its response carefully in order to inform her own teaching.

Data Collection and Analysis

In addition to collecting the weekly journal entries and responses by the participants, the preservice teachers were specifically asked to fill in two questionnaires, one before the strat- egy was implemented, and the other after they completed the activity. The questionnaires were designed to measure the change in the participants’ attitudes and outlook toward this new format of reflection; therefore, they were not very different from each other. The first questionnaire asked if the participants had prior experience with online joumaling and their initial response to this strategy. The sec- ond questionnaire was designed to find out how the preservice teachers viewed the values and pitfalls of online peer dialogue joumaling and their opinions on online dialogue journal- ing in comparison to traditional peer dialogue journaling (see the Appendix for both ques- tionnaires).

The questionnaires were sent to the class via e-mail messages. The participants filled in the questionnaires online and also sent them back to the first author via e-mail. The com- pletion of both questionnaires was totally vol- untary. They were not given any extra credit for doing this.

Because of the unique focus of this present study, the priinary data used in this study were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Online Peer Dialogue Jouding 69

the preservice teachers’ responses to the two questionnaires. There were 40 questionnaires returned to us in total (19 first questionnaires and 21 second questionnaires). The weekly re- flection journal entries and responses were secondary data to triangulate the findings from the analysis of the questionnaires.

Content analysis (Patton, 1990) was the major method of data analysis. Open coding was first conducted to identify prominent concepts in the responses provided by the preservice teachers through careful line-by-line reading. After the data were coded by hand, they were input into Nudist N5, a qualitative data analysis software program, to help search for patterns, re- lationships among different concepts, and sup- porting data clips. In this process, similar con- cepts were grouped together to form major categories. The frequencies of each category were tabulated to allow prominent patterns to emerge. In addition, the study’s questions were used to focus data analysis and reporting. Em- phases were on finding how the preservice teachers view the effectiveness of online peer di- alogue journaling and its impact on their leam- ing and reflection. Throughout the process of data analysis, the first author also wrote memos to “record progress, thoughts, feelings” and to “gain analytical distance from materials” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 218).

The findings were also subjected to re- searcher triangulation. The first author con- ducted the open coding and developed initial concepts and categories. The second author acted as an external auditor, carefully review- ing the coding and pattern generation. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion un- til consensus was reached.

Findings: Participants’ Views of Online Peer Dialogue Journaling

Results from the First Questionnaire

Out of the 19 participants who responded to the first questionnaire (all names are pseudo- nyms), 9 of them indicated that they had expe- rience with online journaling. Further member check revealed that the online journaling to which they referred only involved sending the

whole class their reflections on course readings in another teacher education class. It did not include receiving feedback from peers. There- fore, none of the participants had ever had ex- perience with this new form of journaling.

The participants’ initial reactions to online peer dialogue journaling were mostly positive. Sixteen out of the 19 participants were positive or semipositive about the strategy. Of the posi- tive opinions, about half were completely posi- tive, but the other half, while positive, also ex- pressed concerns. Three participants were completely negative about this strategy.

The main positive aspects identified in- cluded peer learning and technology use. In re- lation to cooperative learning, Mandy wrote, “I feel that we can learn a lot from our classmates and they may have a lot of good ideas and tips.” Erin also commented that “it sounds like a great way to let others know what is and isn’t work- ing.” Regarding technology use, Dana stated, ‘‘I think it is a great way to incorporate technology in the class.”

The major concern mentioned was technol- ogy problems, and six participants named this as their concern. The problems included unspeci- fied difficulties (e.g., “sometimes the computer creates problems”), the Coursenet program (e.g., “but computer, especially Coursenet can be un- predictable”) , and a reliability issue with the university’s server (e.g., “but the university’s service is extremely fickle. Some days it works, and some days it doesn’t. It would be great [id it worked all the time”). Violet was the only one who was concerned about not having privacy. She wrote, “1 think that some people may not like to post their message because they won’t want everyone to see what they wrote.” Katie just simply viewed this whole activity in a very negative light. She stated, “It is a pain because 1 don’t have time for busywork and don’t get much out of it.”

Results from the Second Questionnaire

The participants’ responses to the second questionnaire were much longer and more spe- cific. Sixteen of the 21 participants supported the use of online peer journaling as a learning strategy in future courses. One took a neutral

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

70 JlENlNG RUAN AND SARA ANN BEACH

Table 1. Values of Online Peer Dialogue Journaling

Values Occurrences

Peer Learning 15 Convenience 9 Experience with Technology 5

stance. Four participants were against its use in future courses.

Tables 1 and 2 list the number of occur- rences of each major category appearing in the participants’ responses to the questionnaire items. Some responses fell within two o r more categories, and others, within only one category.

Values and Pitfalls of Online Peer . Dialogue Journaling

The values recognized by the participants are ranked in the following order: peer learning, convenience, and technology use. One stu- dent considered it useful for her to reflect on her lessons.

In relation to peer learning, the partici- pants considered having access to all class- mates’ ideas and receiving feedback and sup- port from their peers very valuable to their growth and learning. Mary commented, “It provides us with an opportunity to receive pos- itive and constructive feedback. . . . I like it. You get to hear the perspectives of your peers.”

Convenience included factors related to not having to submit to the constraint of time and space as well as easy organization/record keeping. Online peer dialogue journaling is “more convenient than one-on-one meetings” (Annie) and “easy to respond” (Nella). Karen commented that “it is more organized.” Violet also considered it convenient because “[it is] easy to keep track of, everything is dated.”

Several participants were in favor of the technological aspect of this strategy. Georgia

Table 2. Pitfalls of Online Peer Dialogue Journaling

Pitfalls Occurrences

Technology Difficulties Hassle Partner Problems

18 3 3

Being Impersonal 2

considered technology use as a strength, and she wrote, “Technology should be used.” Dana too identified the value of this strategy as “technology interaction.” While acknowledg- ing the difficulty she had had with Coursenet, Nella also pointed out that “technology can be beneficial.”

The participants also identified several pitfalls. They are ranked in the following or- der: technology difficulties, hassle, partner problems, and being impersonal.

Difficulties with technology that were identified ranged from lack of technology ac- cessibility (limited access to computers and/or Internet) to network problems to the problems with the Coursenet program. A pitfall identi- fied by Dana is “not having Internet access,” while Deana viewed the disadvantage of this strategy as “not having access to a computer and sending on time.” Andrea complained that “oftentimes, the server shuts down and other conflicts arise causing problems when re- sponding.” Erica commented that the “com- puter system goes down often.” Karen, like many other participants who were frustrated with the Coursenet program, wrote, “Coursenet is tem- permental [sic] and does not always work! ! ! !”

Three participants viewed it as a hassle and time consuming. Katie wrote, “It is just another thing to take up time.” The other two participants also shared a similar sentiment.

Partner problems included aspects such as feedback from the partner not being thought- ful, helpful, or on time. Karen was particularly unhappy about the quality of feedback she re- ceived from her partner. She pointed out that “advice may not be really beneficial or helpful. Peers may not put true thought into writing/responding to journals.” Ruth also considered it “difficult if partner is unreliable.”

Being impersonal was a pitfall mentioned by two participants. Both preferred face-to- face interaction. Annie thought that “it takes away the interpersonal aspect of working with each other.” However, she did acknowledge the value of the strategy by saying, “Sure, if time does not allow face-to-face discussion be- tween partners.” Darin considered that with this strategy, there is “not much sensitivity in it; you don’t have to fiace them.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Online Peer Dialogue lournuling 7 1

Online Dialogue Journaling vs. Traditional Dialogue Journaling

Fourteen of the participants preferred the use of online peer dialogue journaling to the tradi- tional dialogue journaling using pen and pa- per. Two had no preference. Five participants preferred the traditional format.

The reasons cited for choosing online dia- logue joumaling over traditional dialogue journaling include peer learning, technology use, and convenience. Those against it viewed it as a hassle and something that is time con- suming. Only two students cited technology difficulties as the reason for not wanting to choose the online method over the traditional method.

‘ Tina’s position on online peer dialogue journaling was representative of the majority of the participants in the study. While recog nizing both values and pitfalls of this strategy, she decided to support its use in her future teacher education classes. She stated,

The values are we learn from each other and gain new strategies to use. . . . Yes [I’d use it again], we learn a lot from each other. . . . I like online journaling better than traditional peer joumaling because of the use of the computer. . . . Disadvan- tages are computer problem. Advantages are better reply from peers.

On the opposite side, Ellen was one of the participants who decided not to use it in future classes. Her statements also reflected the sen- timents held bv the very small moup against its

- - - use. She staied,

[The Internet forum] was very tricky. It seemed to get stuck [running] during a task and sometimes did not respond to a task. . . . I think it would be more profes- sional and easier if we wrote the journals after the tutoring session and gave it the [sic] our partner. Then, it would be their responsibility to respond and remember to bring back. . . . 1 think it [online journal- ing] is more time confusing [sic] and a has- sle since technology has complications too other [sic]. . . . Advantages-everyone

would be able to see other journals and ideas. Disadvantages-sometimes it is hard to be able to find the time or get it [the Internet forum] to work correctly.

Findings: Reflection in Online Peer Dialogue Journals and Responses

Analysis of participants’ journal entries and responses provided a wealth of information on their learning, including struggles and success stories. The learning trajectory for most pre- service teachers in this study generally began with a sense of excitement about working with their students. Then the reality quickly settled in, and they felt challenged. Many of them ex- pressed their feeling of uncertainty toward their own ability to help their students over- come difficulties in reading and/or writing. They looked for activities that could help them become more effective with their stu- dents, and many of them sought support from their journal partners. Throughout this process, they comforted each other, cheered for each other, and offered constructive feed- back and suggestions for each other. Toward the end of the practicum experience, most of them expressed a sense of pride and empower- ment about the work they had done to help their students, albeit in different degrees.

No rude or unprofessional reflection journal or response entry was found. In addition, most participants followed the procedures and posted their journal entries and responses on time.

There was much evidence indicating that the participants had been actively engaged in thinking reflectively and providing support to their peers. The following two journal entries, a reflection journal entry and its response jour- nal entry, clearly suggest so.

In her journal entry, Vera wrote,

This tutoring session went alright. She went through the assessment rather quickly . . . faster than i [sic] had expected.

Since we got to her instructional level rather quickly i had to move on to my other activity rather quickly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

72 JlENlNG RUAN AND SARA ANN BEACH

1 was running out of things to do. 1 had a word sort activity which worked out pretty well because she said that she is working on that at school currently. She did really well on it.

Since we had even more time, 1 had a backup where she created a drawing of her favorite character and scene from a book. She enjoyed this very much and shared with me. I also had her do another free writing after reading a poem with her about a cat. Then since even more time was left i helped her with her spelling words. 1 need help on spreading my leam- ing material out. I was afraid that i was go- ing to be left with nothing else to do. She is a person that likes to move on to differ- ent activities. I did find that moving to a table away from the comer was hetter this time. She did not lose focus as much. She did tum around a couple of times but nothing disruptive.

In response, Deana, Vera’s journaling part- ner, wrote,

Hi Vera, It seems like she is a good reader and

writer and the lesson moves quickly. You should find more challenging activities that may take her more time.

Also ask her to bring ii hook she would like you guys to read. You can leave this suggestion at the end of the lesson. Then you can read the hook together.

1 love the idea ahout drawing a char- acter from a hook and descrihing it.

You may want to hring in some infor- mational books you could read together a i d learn interesting fiacts.

Hope you have govd session next week!!!

In Vera’s joumal entry, we found that she engaged herself in active self-analysis. She laid open the thinking process involved in several instructional decisions she made during the tu- toring. She talked about the challenge she was facing in terms of not having planned enough for her students to do, and she also reflected on the behavior modification she did to help the student become more focused using the suggcs- tion given by Deana the week before when she discussed the problem with Deana.

In her response, Deana was trying to build solidarity and provided Vera positive feedback about her student, her lesson, and later on her character portrait activity. She further offered Vera suggestions on how to solve her problem by finding more challenging activities and us- ing informational books that they both would enjoy. She concluded her response on a note of encouragement.

Discussion

The overall findings suggest that online peer dialogue journaling is an effective method that supports preservice teachers in learning and reflective thinking. More importantly, it is viewed favorably and is well received by most participants in the study, and it has several ad- vantages over traditional forms of dialogue journaling and online discussion.

The findings also suggest some ways that can be used to improve this strategy. Many of the pitfalls identified hy the participants (such as viewing the strategy as a hassle and a time- consuming practice) could be addressed hy communicating inore thoroughly with the few preservice teachers who could nut see the value of reflection to their overall learning and becoming more effective teachers. Em- phasizing professionalism and accountahility with the preservice teachers could solve the is- sue of partner problems. Teacher educators who want to use this strategy tnay also provide opportunities in class for the reflection dyads to have further face-to-face discussion on their reflection to address the concern pointed out by a very small number of participants about thc impersonal aspect of conversing online.

Most preservice teachers in the study rec- ognized the benefits that technology can bring to their learning. Although most of them had encountered technology difficulty and viewed it as somewhat problematic, the fact that only two of them identified it as the reason for not choosing the online format clearly shows these preservice teachers’ mature outlook on tech- nology use. They were able to view technology difficulty in perspective in order to enjoy the benefits that technology integration brings. There is indication that they understood the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Online Peer Dialogue Journaling 73

important role that technology plays in today’s schools and considered technology integration as one of the major strengths of this strategy.

Most preservice teachers in this study ap- preciated the opportunity of being able to have access to each other’s experiences and ideas presented in their online reflective and re- sponse journals. Unlike the finding in Carter’s study (1998)’ this study suggests that when the preservice teachers were engaged in online peer dialogue journaling, they showed strong interest in each other’s experiences and per- spectives and willingness to learn from each other. They viewed their peers as valuable members of an active learning community who could contribute to each other’s growth.

The findings also support reflective prac- tices in the dialogic form (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Most preservice teachers responded positively to the dialogic process that they were engaged in to promote mutual learning. Many of them specifically indicated they en- joyed the responses provided by their partners and viewed the support and feedback provided by their partners as valuable to their learning. Therefore, it is critical that teacher education programs recognize the value of student knowledge and experience and actively pro- mote dialogues among preservice teachers.

The findings also raised several issues that need to be addressed in order to effectively in- tegrate technology in teacher education courses. First, the need for better technology support from higher education institutions and teacher educators should be recognized. Sec- ond, it is important to realize that technology difficulty is a broad term that means many things. The findings clearly suggest that it could range from technology inaccessibility to network problems to simply the problems in- herent in the certain online program used in the higher education institution. Pinpointing and solving the true problems could facilitate successful technology integration. Third, tech- nology has provided unprecedented opportu- nities for communication and social construc- tion of knowledge. I t is important that teacher educators take full advantage of the benefits that technology can bring. More innovative methods with meaningful technology integra-

tion should be explored and developed to sup- port the growth of preservice teachers through active and interactive processes.

Although online dialogue journaling was developed to promote preservice teachers’ re- flection on teaching, only one participant specifically identified that it was helpful to her reflection. Instead, the preservice teachers mainly viewed it as an effective learning strat- egy through which they got to use technology to learn and share ideas with each other. How- ever, ample evidence of reflective thinking in the journal entries indicates that most preser- vice teachers actively engaged themselves in reflective thinking practices when writing their journals and responding to each other’s journals online. One explanation is that the questionnaires did not specifically ask them about the impact of the strategy on their re- flection. The other explanation could be that the preservice teachers tended to focus on the more noticeable benefits that the strategy af- fords (i.e., getting ideas from their peers and gaining experience with technology) instead of the professional growth brought by the more complex, hidden cognitive process such as reflective thinking. In either case, this is a limitation of the study. In future studies, ques- tions specifically addressing issues related to reflection should be added.

The International Reading Association argues in a position statement on technology and literacy, “Teacher education must begin to include the new technologies of literacy within literacy methods courses. Although this is beginning to take place, much more re- mains to be accomplished” (IRA, 2002). On- line peer dialogue journaling is an effort to an- swer this call. I t is a strategy that could promote both technology integration and stu- dent learning in teacher education courses.

Finally, the authors would like to call for more studies that explore the potentials of technology integration for enhancing preser- vice teachers’ ability to become reflective practitioners. Also needed are studies that sys- tematically compare various forms of online communication for their effectiveness in sup- porting preservice teachers’ reflection and learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

74 JlENlNG RUAN AND SARA ANN BEACH

Appendix Questionnaire I

Have you had any experience with online peer journaling in your previous teacher education

What do you think of it as an instructional strategy for facilitating student learning?

Questionnaire I1

What are the values and pitfalls of this strategy? Should we keep using this strategy in our future literacy education courses? Why and why not? What’s your opinion on using online dialogue journaling to replace traditional peer dialogue jour-

What could he some advantages and disadvantages of online dialogue journaling in comparison to

courses ?

naling ?

traditional peer dialogue journaling?

References Anderson, J. (1993). Journal writing: The promise

and the reality. Journal of Reading, 36(4), 3 04-3 09.

Bean, T., 61 Stevens, L. P. (2000, December). Scaf- fokling reflection for pesewice and inservice teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

Black, R., Sileo, T. W., & Prater, M. A. (2000). Learning journals, self-reflection, and iiniver- sity students’ changing perceptions. Action in Teacher Education, 21(4), 71-89.

Block, C. C., Oaknr, M., & Hurt, N. (2002). The expertise of literacy teachers: A continuum from preschool to grade 5. Reading Research Qwtrterl?, 37(2), 178-206.

Roud, D., Keogh, R., &Walker, L). (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Lun- don: K o g m Page.

Boyd, E. M. & Fales, A. W. (1983). Reflective learning: Key to learning from experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychologlv, 23( 2 ) ,

Carhoni, L. W. (1999, January). HOW might an on- line discussion forum support teachers’ Irrofes- sional development in mathematics! A first look. Paper presented at the annual meeting o f the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educa- tors, Chicago, 1L.

Carter, C. (1998). The use of journals to promote reflection. Action in Teacher Education, I 1(4), 39-42.

Cuhan, L. (1999, August 4). The technology puz-

99-1 17.

Edens, K: M. (2000). Promoting communication, inquiry, and reflection in an early practicum experience via an on-line discussion group. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2), 14-23.

Faison, C. ( 1996, Septemher-Octoher). Modeling instructional technology use in teacher prepa- ration: Why we can’t wait. Educational Tech- nology, 57-59.

Fetterman, D. (1998). Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Firek, H. (2003). 10 easy w a y to use technology in the English classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heine- inann.

Fisher, D., Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (2000). H o w is technology really used for literacy instruction in elementary and middle-school classrooms! In J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fair- hanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (as.), 49th ym-book of the National Reading Conference (pp. 464-476). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Harrington, H. L., & Quinn-Leering, K. (1996). Written case analyses and critical reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 25-37.

International Reading Association (IRA). (2002). Integrating literacy and technology in the curricu- lum: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: IRA.

Kasten, W. C., & Padak, N. D. (1997). Nurturing preservice teacher’s reflection on literacy. In C. K. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchinan, & L). J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theories and practice: 46th yearbook of the National Reading Confer- ence (pp. 335-346). Chicago: National Read-

zle. Education Week, 18(43), 47, 68. ing Conference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using Online Peer Dialogue Journaling 75

Lowry, M., Koneman, P., Osman-Jouchoux, R., & Wilson, B. (1994). Electronic discussion groups: Using e-mail as an instructional strat- egy. Tech Trends, 39(2), 22-24.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Ed- ucation (NCATE). (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Retrieved May 29, 2004, from http://www.ncate.org/accred/projects/ tech/tech-21 .htm

Northrup, P. T., & Little, W. (1996). Establishing instructional technology benchmarks for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education Programs, 47(3), 213-222.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and re- search methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pope, C., 61 Golub, J. (2000). Preparing tomor- row’s English language arts teachers today: Principles and practices for infusing technol- ogy. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, I (1). Retrieved March 5, 2003, from http://www.citejournal.org/voll/ iss I/currentissues/english/article 1 .htm

Pressley, G. M., Allington, R. L., Wharton- McDonald, R., Block, C., & Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from the god first grade classrocm. New York: Guilford Press.

Putnam, R. R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educa- tional Researcher, 29, 4-1 5.

Richardson, V. ( 1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Re- searcher, 19(7), 10-18.

Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Risko, V. (2001). Re- flection and learning to teach reading: A crit- ical review of literacy and general teacher ed- ucation studies. journal of Literacy Research, 33(4), 595-635.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Selfe, C. L. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying at-

tention. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer- sity Press.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualita- tive research: Techniques and procedures for de- veloping grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K.M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Jour- nal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (1995, March). Making it happen: Regort of the Secretary’s Conference a Educational Technology. Washington, DC: Author.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wade, S. E:, & Fauske, J. R. (2004). Dialogue on- line: Prospective teachers’ discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussions. Reading Re- search Quarterly, 39, 134-160.

Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and classroom research: What path should we take? Educa- tional Researcher, 27, 28-33.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jiening Ruan is an assistant professor of read- inditeracy education at the University of Ok- lahoma. Her current research interests include children’s biliteracy development and tech- nology integration in literacy education.

Sara Ann Beach is an associate professor of readindliteracy education and coordinator of the reading program at the.University of Ok- lahoma. Research interests include early liter- acy, teacher education, and critical literacy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Lei

den

/ LU

MC

] at

07:

56 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014