In this section of the IASCE Newsletter, we provide information on journal articles of relevance to our readership. Normally, we try to include the APA reference, an abstract of the article, and the author(s)’s email address. We didn’t always succeed in this issue. With your help, good readers, we hope to do better next time.

1. Some educators worry that children in early education are too young to collaborate with one another. The latest issue of the journal, International Journal of Early Years Education (Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2001) presents evidence to the contrary. Here is a list of the articles appearing in this issue.

Bert Van Oers; Maritta Hännikäinen. Some thoughts about togetherness: An introduction (pp. 101 – 108).

Sylvie Rayna. The very beginnings of togetherness in shared play among young children (pp. 109 – 115).

Dorian De Haan; Elly Singer. Young children's language of togetherness (pp. 117 – 124).

Maritta Hännikäinen. Playful actions as a sign of togetherness in day care centres (pp. 125 – 134).

Ulf Janson. Togetherness and diversity in pre-school play (pp.135 - 143).

Sofia Avgitidou. Peer culture and friendship relationships as contexts for the development of young children's pro-social behaviour (pp. 145 – 152).

José A. Sánchez Medina; Virginia Martínez Lozano; Paul P. Goudena. Conflict management in pre-schoolers: A cross-cultural perspective (pp.153 – 160).

2. Hanrahan, S.J. & Isaacs, G. (2001) Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students' views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53-70. [Contact: g.isaacs@mailbox.uq.edu.au]

Self- and peer-assessment are being used increasingly in higher education, to help assign grades to students' work and to help students to learn more effectively. However, in spite of this trend there is little in the published literature on how students view these methods. In this paper we present an analysis of the views of a large number of students (N = 233) who had just experienced self- and peer-feedback as part of one of their subjects. It is a rarely questioned commonplace in the literature that in order to gain benefit from peer and self-assessment schemes students first need training in the specific scheme being used; ideally they will play a role in devising the scheme. The intervention reported here, which involved a large (N = 233) group of students, included no such measures. The results show that students felt, nonetheless, that they benefited from the intervention. The results also present prima facie evidence that training or other measures to further involve the students in the peer and self-assessment scheme might be beneficial. Our analysis of students' views revealed eight general dimensions under which are grouped twenty higher order themes. The results both support and extend previous research and give a more detailed picture than previously available. The general dimensions found were: Difficult; Gained Better Understanding of Marking; Discomfort; Productive (including learning benefits and improved work); Problems with Implementation; Read Others' Work; Develop Empathy (with assessing staff); and, Motivation (especially motivation to impress peers). The practical implications of these findings are discussed.

3. Two other articles that deal with assessment are:

a. Magin, D. J. (2001). A novel technique for comparing the reliability of multiple peer assessments with that of single teacher assessments of group process work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2), 139 – 152.

b. Magin, D. J. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53 – 63.

4. Like one of the books in our From the Bookshelf section, this article describes collaboration among teachers.

The greater acceptance of special needs students in the regular classroom has created many new challenges as well as opportunities for educators. This article describes focused instructional strategies that the special needs teacher and the regular classroom teacher can use to provide complementary and effective instruction in reading. It describes ways to support the struggling reader throughout the reading process and specifically addresses instructional strategies to use with students before, during and after reading in a collaborative setting.

Here are three relevant articles from the latest issue. The journal does not supply abstracts for their articles, so take the ones below with a grain of salt, please.

This article describes how a primary school teacher worked with a university researcher to translate the following belief into action by using writing workshop and conducting research on what occurred:

The authors describe three types of collaborative writing engaged in by the pupils:

• Parallel writing – Two or more pupils work to create one text, with each keeping their own copy. This allows each student to make their own changes or additions to the text.
• Y-writing – One student begins a piece, which is then continued by their partner. Then, the pair work together to finish the text using only one copy of it.
• Collective writing – Students all do writing on one text, and then assign various roles to group members to complete the work. Roles mentioned are coming up with titles for poems, rewriting, and checking spelling

Next, the authors discuss conditions for success:

• Creating a sense of community: "allowing children to get to know each other as people first. This establishes the foundation for future collaborations as readers, writers, artists, and inquirers. … help[ing] learners see that by working together we’re smarter, and we can accomplish more than we could alone."
• Physical space that facilitates talking and writing, i.e., breaking away from rows of separate desks.
• Writing and publishing supplies.
• Choice as to topic, text type, and how to publish.
• Sharing circle, in which students share with the entire class what they are working on.

This article begins by characterizing literacy in the Internet age as collaborative, problem-oriented, and critical. The bulk of the article explains and gives many examples (with URLs) of two types of internet projects that involve collaboration among students in different locations.

c. Bond, T. F. (2001). Giving them free rein: Connections in student-led book groups. The Reading Teacher, 54, 574-584. [contact: tbond@academicplanet.com]

This article describes how a teacher researcher learned to change the way her students did book discussion groups (which also involved journal writing), switching from teacher-directed to student-led groups.

Despite giving students more say in how they collaborated, the teacher continued to play a key role. The author describes how she provided scaffolding for groups (rather than just putting them in groups and asking them to "go to it") by:

• Teaching students roles, such as Connector who identifies connection between the book being read and the students’ world.
• Suggesting journal writing ideas to accompany their reading and share with the groups.
• Giving book talks to interest students in particular books.
• Providing in-class time for reading.

Near the end of the article is a valuable discussion of the author’s quandary when she noted that when left on their own, student discussion often did not touch on issues she felt were important for expanding students’ perspectives. "I was torn by wanting to be there to scaffold for them, yet not wanting to intrude on the idea of student-led discussion." Suggestions for addressing this dilemma are offered, as well as ideas for using student-led reading groups in other subjects besides language arts.

6. This next article is easy to get since it's in an electronic journal. The article discusses CL as one of eight changes representative of a broader paradigm shift in second language education. The paradigm shift is, for the most part, relevant to education generally.

The authors argue that in second language education, although the paradigm shift was initiated many years ago, it still has been only partially implemented. Two reasons for this partial implementation are: (1) by trying to understand each change separately, second language educators have weakened their understanding by missing the larger picture; and (2) by trying to implement each change separately, second language educators have made the difficult task of change even more difficult.