This article was downloaded by: [39.231.26.

15]
On: 29 November 2013, At: 16:07
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computers in the Schools

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20

Sharing, Talking, and Learning in the

Elementary School Science Classroom:
Benefits of Innovative Design and
Collaborative Learning in ComputerIntegrated Settings
a

J. Andrs Gallardo-Virgen & Robert A. DeVillar

a

Golden Rule Schools, Inc , Dallas, Texas, USA

Bagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State University ,

Kennesaw, Georgia, USA
Published online: 16 Dec 2011.
To cite this article: J. Andrs Gallardo-Virgen & Robert A. DeVillar (2011) Sharing, Talking, and
Learning in the Elementary School Science Classroom: Benefits of Innovative Design and
Collaborative Learning in Computer-Integrated Settings, Computers in the Schools, 28:4, 278-290,
DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2011.621803
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2011.621803

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 licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary
sources of information. 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 or indirectly 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 or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
&

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Computers in the Schools, 28:278290, 2011

Copyright Taylor & Francis
Group, LLC ISSN: 0738-0569
print / 1528-7033 online DOI:
10.1080/07380569.2011.621803

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

Sharing, Talking, and Learning in

the Elementary School Science
Classroom: Benefits of Innovative
Design and Collaborative Learning
in Computer-Integrated Settings
J. ANDRE S GALLARDOVIRGEN
Golden Rule Schools, Inc,
Dallas, Texas, USA

ROBERT A.
DEVILLAR
Bagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State
University, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA

Impact on student achievement

of
randomly
assigned
students working
individually or collaboratively in mixedand
matchedgender
pairs
at
a
computer
on
predetermined
science
tasks
was investigated.
Collaborative
dyads shared a computer and screen as
each operated an independent keyboard
and mouse. A mixed gender control
group
working
individually
at
their
respective com- puters was used for
comparison
purposes.
A
software
application was designed to facilitate
collaborative work and track the quantity
of
text
written by
users
and
their
respective use of time. A final writ- ten
assessment was conducted to compare
the level of
academic achievement
between the control group and the
experimental. A significant difference in
academic achievement resulted.
KEYWORDS
collaborative/cooperative
learning,
computer
integrated
instruction,
educational
equity,
elementary
school
science,
Mexico,

private schools
Language serves as the primary medium in helping
students
to construct their understanding of complex
concepts in science, and to reason more effectively
about science and technology. Instructional settings that
use in- formation and communication technologies can
complement students tradi- tional learning through text
and spoken language by integrating diverse tools that
enhance communication and
that include graphical
images, animation, audio, video, simulations, as well as
three-dimensional models, and virtual
Address correspondence to Dr. Robert A. DeVillar, Bagwell College of
Education, Kenne- saw State University, 1000 Chastain Rd., Kennesaw,
GA 30144. E-mail: rdevilla@kennesaw.edu
27
8

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

Sharing, Talking, and

Learning

23

worlds. This panoply of innovative communicative means

is sufficient rea- son to examine how language is used
among students within todays science classroom where
enhanced technology tools support computer-enriched instruction (Lemke, 2005). Research is particularly relevant
within technology- mediated classroom settings where
students
share
a personal computer to optimize
technology resources and engage in cooperatively
designed problem-solving activities (DeVillar, 1990, 1991).
Classrooms are not traditionally structured to elicit
substantive studentstudent conversation, although such
interaction is standard behav- ior within
social
interactions outside the classroom. In social interaction
set- tings,
students, as others
do, generally follow
informal
and
unspoken rules of discourse (Goffman,
1981).
Ideally, the
smoothness in
role
alternation
between speaker and listener in a normal dialogue
stems from the inter- locutors common purpose to
minimize the conversational overlap and time lapses
between turns. The context in which this alignment is
produced is a social
onethat
is, one
in which
communication is synchronized between speaker and
listener, enabling the alternate turn-taking action that
contributes to mutual understanding (Garrod & Pickering,
2004). To what degree stu- dents working together in
pairs
within
a science classroom dialogue with one
another in communicative synchrony to solve problems,
and
to what degree this socially enhanced learning
context
differs from students
working individually at
computers, were the focus of the authors in this research.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

In our increasingly globalized world, it is imperative for
students
to achieve a heightened level of literacy to
complement strong academic skills.
The 21st Century
Workforce Commission criteria for literacy not only include
thinking and
reasoning skills,
but also
effective
communication and teamwork skills (Johnson & Johnson,
2009a), as well as proficiency in using technology (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2000).
The Commission report
highlights the fact that the current and future health of
Americas 21st century economy depends directly on how
broadly and deeply Americans reach this level of literacy.
How quickly the United States can achieve this goal is
also a salient factor in developing a workforce prepared
to design, produce, evaluate, and use technology in the

24

J. A. Gallardo-Virgen and R.

A. DeVillarand dimensions of U.S. life (The

ever-increasing aspects
Childrens Partnership, 2005).
The United States is not alone in this technologydriven imperative to educate its
students. Other
countries are
involved in
a
similar
process
of
development, to greater
or lesser
degrees, and
workforce demand scenar- ios are
such
that the
Commission report cited readily acknowledges that a
flexible immigration policy
for skilled IT [information
technology] work- ers is one of the keys to success
(U.S. Department of Labor, 2000).

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

Sharing, Talking, and

Learning

25

Throughout the last century, Mexico provided a significant

number of immi- grants to the United States that were
characterized as largely unskilled rela- tive to the U.S.
Department of States
occupational listing
(U.S.
Department of State, 2009)a pattern that continues
today.
As a developing country, Mexico faces great
challenges in formally educating its citizenry. It had, for
example, the second smallest budget per capita within
the nations compris- ing the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the year 2005.
In addition, Mexico spent only 1,467 USD (U.S. dollars)
per elementary school student, or 27.6% of the mean
OECD expenditure of
5,313 USD in this category
(OECD, 2005).
Throughout Mexico, private and public schools exist
where computing classroom settings consist of student
pairs sharing a personal computer to op- timize technology
resources.
Computers,
however,
traditionally
are
designed for use by a single student. Two students at the
same computer could pro- duce a setting within which
inequity is experienced in the use of the input devices.
Equity is defined here as each students comparable
access, par- ticipation, and benefit relative to computerintegrated instruction (DeVillar,
1986, 1987, 2000; DeVillar & Faltis, 1987), particularly
within social learning contexts, where collaborationor its
more structured and research-informed methodological
kin, cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2009a)is
expected, by design or intuition. Thus, the fundamental
and persistent prob- lem to be addressed in resourceconstrained, or even resource-rich, contexts where two or
more students access the same computer, relates to
trans- forming the shoulder-to-shoulder (also known as
side-by-side and parallel) learning setting to a socially
interdependent,
interactive
learning
setting
characterized by negotiated communication between student
partners
that leads each
to optimal
academic
achievement (DeVillar, 1991; Jenson, de Castell, & Bryson,
2003).

PURPOS
E
The general research aim was to determine the impact
on the academic achievement of preadolescent students,
working collaboratively in dyads at shared computers,
who studied a natural science unit regarding oviparous

26

J. A. Gallardo-Virgen and R.

A. DeVillar The dyad computer setting was

and viviparous animals.
enhanced by
the following innovation, which
was
conceptualized by the second author and designed and
produced by the first author: Each student shared a
common screen and computer in the dyad, but each had
individual access and control of his or her input device
(mouse and keyboard). A group of students work- ing
individually, each at a single computer, was used for
control purposes. A secondary aim of the authors in this
study had a socioeconomic orien- tation (DeVillar, Faltis,
& Cummins, 1994) that was dependent on the null
hypothesis being rejectednamely, to associate effective
collaborative learn- ing outcomes using
independent
input devices and a shared output device

Sharing, Talking, and

Learning

27

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

with
substantive economic savings on computer
configurations, particularly for developing countries and,
more
generally, resource-constrained school contexts.
The economic savings of shared devices would be justified
to the degree that pedagogical gains were greater under
these conditions than gains made by students working
individually at computers. This second
aim would not
detract from the more general hypothesized finding that a
collaborative learning setting in which a mixed-device
computer configuration was
used would result
in
pedagogical benefits regardless of economic constraints.

HYPOTHESE
S
The primary research objective was to determine if a
difference existed between the experimental and control
groups studied. The experimental group consisted of 4thgrade student dyads working collaboratively, in mixed and
matched pairs, with each partner using his or her own
input
device at a shared
display. A control
group
comprised of 4th-grade students worked individually at a
personal computer. Two hypotheses were generated to
reflect
possible outcomes relating to the research
context:
H0 . The work developed through the conditions of
collaborative learning created in the present research
design does not produce sufficient evi- dence to infer
that an improvement exists
in the quality of the
academic achievement of the pupils.
H1 . The conditions of collaborative learning created in
the present research produce sufficient evidence to
infer that there exists an improvement in the academic
achievement of the students.

SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGIC

CONTEXT
The school where the research was conducted is a private
school
located in a Mexican
city whose 567,996
inhabitants have a school completion mean of
8.4 years (National Institute of Statistics, Geography and
Computing, 2005), slightly above the national schooling
mean of 8.1 years. Only 22.1% of Mex- ican households
have
computers nationwide (National
Institute of

28

J. A. Gallardo-Virgen and R.

A. DeVillar
Statistics, Geography
and Computing, 2007); however,
95.8% of the students who par- ticipated in the experiment
had computers in their homes. Additionally, all students
had studied computing since the 1st grade of elementary
school.

METHODOLOG
Y
The students were divided into a control group whose
members worked indi- vidually at his or her computer, and
an experimental group whose members

Sharing, Talking, and

Learning

29

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

worked collaboratively in pairs

at their respective
computers. Participants within the experimental group
were divided again, so that each student within a dyad
would study a different sub-theme in the first part of the
ex- periment and
specialize in it. Collaborative
engagement was accomplished through a variation of the
Jigsaw II method (Slavin, 1991) adapted for pairs and the
Take protocol as a turn-taking method (Inkpen, Booth,
Gribble,
& Klawe,
1995). To complete an exercise
collaboratively, each student partner, by way of the
computer, shared the information in which he or she
had become specialized.

Forming
Groups
Fourth-grade students were selected based on criteria
regarding level of computer concepts and skills generally
common
to students
within
Mexican private
school
settings. Third-grade students, for example, can learn
the basics of computer operation, including notions of
input, memory, central- processing unit, arithmetic unit,
and
output.
Fourth-graders, in
turn,
can become
thoroughly familiar with the notions of software
and
hardware and the concept of a program
as a set of
instructions (Bitter, 1983). Additionally, students around
the
age
of 10
may
have
extensive computer
experience, which was the case for students at the
research site, and thus be ready to critique software
(Hanna, Risden, & Alexander, 1997).
Applying the criteria mentioned previously, 4th-grade
students from the school were invited to participate in the
research. All students, 9 females and
15 males, agreed to be part of the research study. Students
were randomly separated to form two groups with 12
participants in each group.
In the experimental group
(EG), dyads
worked
collaboratively sharing the computer, each one using his
or her mouse and keyboard. Settings such as this one
that use an application combining multiple independent
input channels (mouse devices, keyboards) together with
a single shared output channel (computer monitor) fall
within
the Single
Display
Groupware (SDG) design
(Stewart, Bederson, & Druin, 1999). In the control group
(CG), each student worked alone at his or her computer.
Each
dyad
with
the
EG was
divided in
two
subgroups (EG11-6 ) and EG21-6 ) to allow researchers to
differentiate between each student in the matched pair,

30

J. A. Gallardo-Virgen and R.

A. DeVillar
and the set of input
devices he or she used, while at the
same computer. The three group classifications were each
identified by student- selected pet names. The last step
in the process was to form mixed dyads composed of EG1
and EG2 partners. Six pairs of students were randomly
selected to work in mixed-grouped EG dyads

Working
Sessions
Sessions were conducted during the computing class and
within the planned activities in the regular classroom.
Following guidelines to assess students

Sharing, Talking, and

Learning

31

(Hanna, Risden,
& Alexander, 1997),
each
session
consisted of 30 minutes working on subject-matter specific
materials in the classroom and 30 minutes of practice
using the computer software in the computer lab.

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

Selected
Material
The material used in the research was part of the
elementary school pro- gram authorized by the Ministry
of Public
Education
(MPE) of Mexico. The themes
specifically selected related to viviparous and oviparous
an- imals, which, as themes, were current at the time
of the research and complied with the MPE-authorized
natural science subject matter for 4th grade.

Experimental
Protocol
The
experiment required three
working sessions,
divided in
two
phases. During
Phase
I, which
encompassed the first two working sessions, stu- dents
reviewed the material for viviparous animals in the first
working ses- sion and for oviparous animals in the
second one. In Phase II, students reviewed a summary
of the material studied in Phase I. Finally, a writ- ten
test was required of all students, the results of which
were statistically analyzed.
PHASE
I
Phase I of the experiment consisted of two sessions, each
one
subdivided into two stages. Session
1, Stage 1
included a lesson on scientific subject mat- ter relative to
viviparous or oviparous animals, each
of which
was
covered by one of two teachers in the classroom. The EG1
group
studied viviparous animals as the EG2 group
studied oviparous animals; each group was taught by a
qualified teacher and worked in separate learning centers
located within the same classroom. Session 1, Stage 2
entailed all students
working on the viviparous
assignment in the computer laboratory. Students in the
experi- mental group were paired in mixed-group dyads
(EG1 + EG2) on shared computers and independent input
devices, using
the specially designed software. The

32

J. A. Gallardo-Virgen and R.

DeVillar
dyads
engagedA. in
a jigsaw variation of cooperative
learning (Aronson & Patnoe, 2011), where the student
having
received specialized instruction
regarding
viviparous animals served as the tutor for the student
partner who had not. Control group students used the
same software in its single-user version. Session 2, Stage
1 duplicated the instructional format: The EG1 group
continued its specialized instruction regarding viviparous
an- imals, while the EG2 group continued its specialized
instruction of oviparous

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

Sharing, Talking, and

Learning

33

animals. The CG received instruction

on oviparous
animals.
Session
2, Stage
2 involved all students
studying oviparous animals, where the EG2 group served
as tutors for the EG1 group.
Subject matter instructional stage.
CG
students who worked in indi- vidual settings, identified as
frogs, were exposed to each theme in different sessions
as follows: In the first session, they studied viviparous
animals; in the second one, they studied oviparous ones.
At the same time, within the experimental group, two sets
of thematically matched dyads, in which each student was
identified as a dog or hen, studied their particular subtheme: viviparous animals for dogs (EG1) and oviparous
for hens (EG2).
Subject matter practice
stage.
Students
within the CG progressed through their subject matter
activities individually, each at a single com- puter, over
the course of two sessionsthe first session related to
viviparous animals; the second, to oviparous animals.
Dyads, meanwhile, progressed through their respective
activities relating to one of the two sub-themes, either
viviparous or oviparous animals, distributed over the
course of two sessions, using the independent input
devices-shared output device com- puter configuration.
PHASE
II
A third session was designed for all students, as a whole
group,
to review the material in the classroom and,
subsequently, in the computer laboratory, using
the
earlier mixed-pair dyad configuration (EG1 + EG2) in the
case of the experimental group. Students reviewed the
subject matter presented in the classroom and were
required to engage in a final assessment in the computer
lab, where each group (EG1+2 and CG) used the computer
con- figuration previously
assigned
it.
The
final
assessment scores are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Final Assessment Scores, Grades (010 scale) of
Experimental and
Control Groups
Experimental Group
9.23
9.23
9.23
9.23
9.23
9.23

Control
Group
10.0
9.23
8.85
8.85
8.85
8.46

34

9.23
9.23
8.85
8.46
8.46
6.92

J. A. Gallardo-Virgen and R.
A. DeVillar

8.46
8.08
7.69
7.31
6.73
6.54

Sharing, Talking, and

Learning

35

ANALYSI
S
To analyze the impact in student achievement for groups
working collabo- ratively and individually, the hypothesis
testing statements were defined as follows:
H0 : 1 2 =
0
H1 : 1 2 >
0
where 1 and 2 are the average scores of groups EG and
CG, respectively. Using the results of the final assessment
scores represented in Table 1, the following statistical
values were obtained.
y1 = 8.878205;
s 2 = 0.469562; s 1 =
1
0.685246
y2 = 8.253205;
s 2 = 1.058756; s 2 =
2
1.028959
From the above values, the combined estimation of the
common variance,
2
s
,
was
calculated:
s
s

2
(n1 1)s
+ (n
1)s
1
2
2
n1 + n2
2

(12 1)0.469562 + (12

1)1.058756
12 + 12
2
s

Due
to the
determined that
unilateral test and
located at the top
value of the test is

= 0.76415972; s = 0.874162

alternative hypothesis, the

authors
it was necessary to use a statistical
that the region of rejection of the test is
end of the t distribution. The statistical
as follows:
( y1
y )
t = 2
1

36

J. A. Gallardo-Virgen and R.
+
A. DeVillar s
n
1

n2

t =

(8.878205 8.253205)
0.874162

1
12

+ 121

t = 1.751312

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

A value of confidence of 0.95 was defined for the

statistic value t(0.05,22) , resulting in value t(0.05,22) =
1.717144.

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

FIGURE 1 Number of characters written by

subgroups EG1 and EG2.

Comparing the value t = 1.751312 versus the critical

value t(0.05,22) =
1.717144,
the result of the information collected falls
within the rejection re- gion, t > t(0.05,22) , and leads us to
reject hypothesis H0 : 1 2 = 0. There- fore, hypothesis
H1 : 1 2 > 0 is accepted, and there is sufficient evidence
to indicate a difference in the
academic
achievement as a result of the use of the collaborative
classroom settings at this level of statistical con- fidence.
The values of 8.88
and
8.25
for 1
and
2 ,
respectively,
show that students
sharing computers
scored slightly higher than those working individually.

DISTRIBUTION OF TASK
ENGAGEMENT
The contribution by each student within subgroups EG1
and EG2 in each computer set is represented in Figures 1
and 2 in two forms: (a) the number of characters written
during the practice session by each student in a dyad,
and (b) the corresponding percentages for each student
within the six dyads.
Although it was not possible to determine a pattern
of participation relative to gender, the authors
did
observe a certain level of distribution of the work across
dyads. In four of the six cases, for example, the
differential distribution of work between members within

any particular dyad ranged from 15.14% to 7.38%. In two

cases, however, the differential distribution of work was
noticeably broader: 67% (nominally) versus 33%.

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

FIGURE 2 Percentage of characters written by

subgroups EG1 and EG2.

CONCLUSIO
NS
Computers continue to become relatively more affordable
for schools
as a result
of the decreasing cost of
technology. In many cases, but certainly not all, students
can have access to their own computera phenomenon
natu- rally exhibited more in developed countries than
the ones that are referred to as developing. However,
beyond independent access to technology, ed- ucational
leaders should re-evaluate the research within the fields
of social science and education, where robust research
exists regarding the socioaca- demic benefits associated
with cooperative (formally structured) and collabo- rative
(less formally or informally structured) dyadic and small
group learning settings. The results of this experiment
demonstrate that using collaborative groupings in the
elementary
school,
computer-integrated
science
classroom can result in academic gains greater than those
achieved by students
working individually at the
computer.
In developing countries such
as Mexico,
where
computers tend to be shared by students, this alternate
type of collaborative technology-integrated classroom
setting, characterized by independent input devices and
a shared output device, could constitute an affordable
solution
to doubling the capac- ity of the existing

infrastructure of personal computers. An adequate family

of software programs needs to be designed specifically
for this low-cost hardware arrangement to more ably
and comprehensively address the eq- uity needs relative
to access, participation, and benefit of students working
and learning together at the computer.

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

A limitation
of the present
study is that it was
conducted within a private school setting, where students
had received computer training since school entry and
where virtually 100% of the students had computer access
at home. Thus, the degree to which the present studys
findings
are
generalizable
to low-income, resourcelimited, and experience-limited settings and students is
unknown and highlights the need for a specific study
within this type of setting.
The technically designed arrangement of the devices
theoretically promotes
equity
in
access
to
the
computing
resources
and,
therefore, a
greater
possibility of equitable distribution. The
actual
achievement of desired balance in their use raises two
recommendations for further study:
1. The need
for students
to be formally
trained
in
collaboration or its more formal
complement,
cooperative learning, to learn to engage in negotiation to navigate through differences (Johnson & Johnson,
2009b).
2. The production of a software update to complement the
existing software application utilized in this study to
enable teachers to operationally define desired
balance and
measure its degree of occurrence
between pairs
of students
working together
in a
learning activity.

REFERENC
ES
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the
classroom: The jigsaw method
(3rd ed.). London, UK: Pinter & Martin Ltd.
Bitter, G. G. (1983). Computer literacy cross the curriculum: A
scope and sequence model. SIGCUE Outlook, 17(4), 712.
doi:10.1145/1045083.1045085.
Chi, E. H., Munson, S., Fischer, G., Vieweg, S., & Parr, C.
(2010).
Advancing the design of
technology-mediated
social participation systems. IEEE Computer,
43(11), 2935.
DeVillar, R. A. (2000). Literacy and the role of technology:
Toward
a framework for equitable schooling. In J. V.
Tinajero & R. A. DeVillar (Eds.), The power of two
languages,
2000: Effective dual-language
use
across the curriculum (pp. 320336). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill School Division.

DeVillar, R. A. (1991).
Cooperative principles, computers,
and classroom lan- guage. In M. McGroarty & C. J. Faltis
(Eds.), Languages in school and so- ciety: Policy
and pedagogy (247261). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter Publishers.
DeVillar, R. A. (1990). Second language use within the nontraditional classroom: Computers, cooperative learning, and
bilingualism. In R. Jacobson & C. J. Faltis (Eds.), Language
distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 13
159). Cleve- dons, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

DeVillar,
R. A. (1987,
JuneAugust). Los ordenadores y la
equidad educativa en los Estados
Unidos.
Telos:
Cuadernos de Comunicacio n, Tecnologa
y
Sociedad, pp. 1632 (Spain).
DeVillar, R. A. (1986). Computers and educational equity
within
the
United
States:
An overview
and
examination of computers uses in education (pp.
123). Paper presented at the StanfordUNESCO Symposium
on Computers and Education, Stanford University, CA.
DeVillar, R. A., & Faltis, C. J. (1987). Computers and educational
equity in American public schools. Capstone Journal of
Education, 7(4), 310.
DeVillar, R. A., Faltis, C. J., & Cummins, J. P. (Eds.) (1994).
Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to
practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy?
Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 8(1), 811.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press. Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K.
(1997). Guidelines for usability testing with
children. Interactions, 4(5), 914.
doi:10.1145/264044.264045
Inkpen, K., Booth, K. S., Gribble, S. D., & Klawe, M. (1995). Give
and take:
Children collaborating on
one
computer.
Proceedings of CHI 95:
Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 258259). Denver, CO: ACM
Press.
Jenson, J., de Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). Girl talk: Gender,
equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer
culture. Womens Studies International Forum, 26 (6),
561573.
For historical persistence of
problem, see
DeVillar, R. A., Faltis, C. J., & Cummins, J. P., Eds. (1994).
Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to
practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009a). An educational
psychology success story: Social interdependence theory
and
cooperative learning. Educational Researcher,
38(5), 365379.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009b). Energizing learning:
The
instructional power
of conflict.
Educational
Researcher, 38(1), 3751.
Lemke, J. (2005). Research for the future of science
education: New ways of learning, new ways of
living. Paper presented at the Seventh
International
Congress on Research in Science Teaching, Granada,
Spain. Retrieved from http://
www-personal.umich.edu/jaylemke/papers/Granada
%20Future%20Science%
20Education.htm.
National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computing.
(2005). Informacio n por entidad. Retrieved
from

http://cuentame.inegi.gob.mx/monografias/
informacion/col/default.aspx?tema=me&e=06.
National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computing.
(2007)
National survey
of availability and usage of
information technology
in
house- holds, 2007. Retrieved
from
http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod
serv/contenidos/
espanol/bvinegi/productos/encuestas/especiales/endutih/ENDU
TIH2007.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(2005). Panorama de la Educacio n 2005. Breve
nota
sobre,
Me xico.
Retrieved
from
http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/28/22/35354433.pdf.
Slavin
R. E. (1991).
Synthesis of research on cooperative
learning. Education Lead- ership, 48(5), 7182.

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013

Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display

groupware:
A
model
for
co-present
collaboration.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems: The CHI Is the Limit
(pp. 286293). New York, NY: ACM Press.
The Childrens Partnership. (June
2005).
Measuring digital
opportunity for Americas children: Where we stand and
where we go from here. USA. Retrieved from
http://www.childrenspartnership.org/AM/Template.cfm?
Section=Technology&
Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7087
U. S. Department of Labor, 21st Century Workforce Commission.
(2000). A nation of opportunity: Building Americas
21st century workforce. Retrieved from http://
digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1003&context=key
workplace.
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs. (2009).
Unskilled occupations
(Appendix E to 22 CFR
62). Retrieved
from
http://exchanges.state.gov/jexchanges/private/trainee
unskilled.html.