Introduction
The frequent lament of many middle grade
teachers is how to engage their students in meaningful learning.
Despite the best efforts of those teachers, early adolescent students
often balk at instruction, preferring to socialize and avoid academic
issues altogether. The years I have taught middle grade humanities have
convinced me that providing engaging instruction is less that half the
issue. Of equal or greater importance is providing an experience which
hooks and engages the student in the learning process. The issue is not
a simple one. The metamorphosis from child to adolescent brings a
confusing struggle for autonomy and independence, along with the
physical, cognitive, and emotional changes of the age. These changes
compete with and often overshadow the importance of academic growth in
the minds of many a twelve to fourteen year old; yet the changes may
lead to new academic capabilities, especially if a teacher can tap the
energy and excitement of early adolescence and channel it into
meaningful learning.
The age group, however, presents numerous
instructional challenges. As students move from elementary to middle
grades, they often show a decrease in academic motivation due to a
frequent shift from student-centered, elementary models to secondary
models which emphasize performance rather than student effort and
understanding (Meece, 2003; Meece, Herman, & McCombs, 2003).
Traditional instruction often fails to engage these young minds (Meece,
Herman, & McCombs, 2003; McGrath, 2002, Paris, & Ayres,
1994). The challenge for middle grade educators lies in capturing the
attention of their students and providing the opportunity for
challenge, creativity, and student choice (Meece, Herman, &
McCombs, 2003; McGrath, 2002, Paris, & Ayres, 1994).
Project-based learning (PBL) provides a means of
engaging these students in learner-centered group activities which
explore open-ended questions that are critical to the curriculum. Using
the PBL model, students work in small collaborative groups and
construct knowledge together as they ask questions, research for
answers, and create a learning artifact (McGrath, 2002; Liu, 2003).
Educational literature promotes PBL as a viable means of stimulating
student engagement in learning tasks (Chen & McGrath, 2003),
challenging students to inquire thoughtfully (Newell, 2003), and
encouraging cognitive and social development (McGrath, 2003;
Newstetter, 2000). In fact, middle grade students especially appear to
benefit from PBL (Meece et al., 2003).
One distinctive feature of PBL is the presence
of an authentic audience for the end product. From the outset of the
PBL unit, students know who their audience is. Whether this audience is
another class, a group of teachers and parents, or a community group,
the students are aware of the need to keep their audience in mind as
they work toward their final product (Krajcik et al., 1994; McGrath et
al., 1997). Not only does this audience provide an end focus for the
artifact, it also provides a guiding focus by encouraging team
self-monitoring (McGrath, 2003; Newell 2003). The presence of this
audience lends authenticity and significance to the project and
encourages students to produce a quality presentation (Krajcik et al.,
1994; McGrath, 2003; Newell 2003).
Although PBL does not require students to use
technology, education in the 21 st century is increasingly committed to
integrating computer usage into the instruction of students. This
movement proposes a student benefit greater than simply learning how to
work with modern tools (Salomon et al., 1989; Jonassen et al., 1996).
Authors note that technology integration increases students’
engagement in learning tasks (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Newell, 2003)
and supports their communication and cognitive skills (ISTE NETS). They
also find that its use is quite appropriate in the middle grades
(McGrath, 1997, 2003; ISTE NETS).
A specific technology task, hypertext creation,
uses web authoring software which allows students to showcase their
work on the Internet to a very large and real audience. Researchers
note that the process of creating hypertext artifacts supports
students’ intrinsic motivation and higher order thinking
skills, which are transferable to other contexts (McGrath et al., 1997;
Liu & Rutledge, 1997; Liu, 2003). More specifically, these
authors also find that hypertext creation can be used in PBL for
displaying end products of learning to authentic audiences (McGrath,
2003; Liu & Rutledge, 1997; Liu, 2003, Chen & McGrath
2003).
Hypertext creation, however, presents complex
challenges to student learners (Liu, 2003). In addition to the
technical know-how and skill needed to design hypertext successfully,
high school and middle grade students vary in their ability to use the
medium to show relationships in constructed knowledge (Chen &
McGrath, 2003). In fact, there is lack of consensus in the literature
about the appropriateness and advisability of incorporating hypertext
creation in middle grade PBL artifact development, due to the cognitive
demands of the task and the self discipline and maturity level of these
early adolescents (Liu & Rutledge, 1997; Liu &
Pedersen, 1998; Liu & Hsiao, 2002; Chen & McGrath,
2003; Liu, 2003).
Where does this discussion place the middle
grade student? As noted, researchers (e.g. McGrath, 2003; Liu, 2003,
Chen & McGrath, 2003; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Newell, 2003;
Newstetter, 2000; and Meece et al., 2003) agree upon the advantages of
student-directed, collaborative, constructionist learning which middle
grade students find in PBL. They also agree upon the benefits of middle
graders preparing artifacts for authentic audiences. They acknowledge,
as well, the higher level of task engagement and cognitive support
which technology use promotes. In question is the creation of hypertext
to showcase PBL artifacts in the middle grades. Hypertext creation
captures student attention, but several issues arise. Does hypertext
artifact creation simply encourage technology play at the middle grade
level, or does it promote engaged learning? Is it too difficult a
process for early adolescents, who thus fall short of engaged learning;
or is it a powerful motivator for engaged learning?
The purpose of this study was to explore whether
middle grade students show signs of engagement in learning when they
create PBL artifacts using hypertext as a tool. The primary research
question is: Do middle grade students show positive signs of engagement
in learning when they create hypertext to showcase their project-based
learning artifacts for authentic audiences? Two classes of 7 th grade
American history students participated in a PBL unit about exploring
Washington, DC. They received instruction in inquiry strategies and in
web authoring using Dreamweaver prior to the beginning of the unit. In
each class two students, matched for reading comprehension and language
scores on the IOWA, were the subjects of a case study. The intent of
the study was to observe and describe signs of engagement in learning,
as the students construct meaning collaboratively and demonstrate it by
creating their hypertext artifacts for viewing by all 7 th grade
classes at their school prior to the October class trip to Washington,
D.C.
Literature Review
Introduction
Educational
literature acknowledges the range in learning experiences from
effortless to strenuous, from self-supporting to scaffolding-dependent
(Chen & McGrath, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Ghani &
Deshpande, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978; Liu, 2003). Teachers recognize that
students may be able to complete learning tasks easily and
independently or may require extensive scaffolding to perform at a
given level. Due to the transitional nature of middle grade students,
their teachers frequently adjust the support provided to meet
students’ changing needs. A challenge for middle grade
teachers is creating instruction which is challenging, yet engaging for
their students.
Project-based learning (PBL) presents students
with challenge, choice, and control as they work collaboratively to
create artifacts for authentic audiences (Paris, & Ayres,
1994). McGrath (2002) agrees that PBL is motivational and appropriate
for middle grade learners; but she and Chen (2003) suggest that
evidence shows the creation of PBL artifacts with hypertext is a task
better suited to high school students. Might preparatory scaffolding
and less complex PBL units assist middle grade students in meeting
cognitive demands to perform the hypertext tasks? Might such support
facilitate engaged learning?
Very few studies focus on hypertext creation by
students, and there is little empirical research on the abilities of
middle grade students to develop PBL artifacts using hypertext.
Instruction in the use of web authoring software and hypertext creation
is sufficiently complex that middle grade teachers may question its
effectiveness for their students, given the lack of research
information. Since authors note the power of hypertext creation for
engaging high school students in learning activities which yield web
page artifacts (Chen & McGrath, 2003), this scarcity of
information for middle grade students is lamentable. What does current
literature say about project-based learning, authentic audiences, and
hypertext creation in education?
Project-Based Learning
Current
literature on PBL addresses student engagement, the importance of an
authentic audience, and student creation of hypertext. Although there
is no single definition of PBL, the characteristics of the model
typically include collaborative construction of an artifact that
answers an essential question and presentation of that end product to
an outside audience (McGrath, 2002). As a learner-centered,
constructivist model, PBL offers the potential for increased
achievement, cognitive development, and use of higher level thinking
skills as students probe open-ended questions and combine their
findings to construct new understanding (Liu, 2003). With PBL, as
students work collaboratively in small groups to answer the driving
question and produce an end product, they demonstrate deep levels of
engagement (Chen & McGrath, 2003). Chen and McGrath further
state that in PBL, students learn research skills, understand the
subject matter at a deeper level than students involved in traditional
models, and are more deeply engaged in their work.
A part of the intrigue which PBL holds for
middle grade learners is the nature of the topic. Rather than a closed,
single-answer question, PBL topics are open-ended, interdisciplinary,
and sufficiently interesting to be challenging (Blumenfeld, Soloway,
Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991). Perkins (1992)
refers to the best questions as being “generative,”
ones that are at the heart of the discipline and offer many choices for
student learning and construction of knowledge. Newell (2003) comments
that PBL is learner-directed learning, which emerges from the interests
and needs of students, as opposed to teacher-directed learning.
“Allowing choice builds intrinsic motivation, and learning
becomes natural and meaningful. It is also just-in-time learning,
recognizing that the best learning opportunities are created when the
learner is interested in them” (Newell, p. 8). For middle
grade students, as for all students, the choice and the challenge are
key ingredients in learning.
The cognitive and social skills which are
developed and used in PBL are important for middle grade learners, as
well. Although lower level cognitive skills may often be appropriate
for younger learners, analysis, synthesis, and “argument
making” are most appropriate for grades 7-12 (Beyer, 1991).
McGrath (2003) comments, “One of the main purposes of doing
PBL is to engage students in inquiry, analysis, synthesis, and other
cognitive processes that lead to deep understanding” (p. 37).
As students produce their artifacts, they combine their research,
construct new learning, and create a position which they justify.
Providing the opportunity for cooperative effort, PBL focuses on
clarity in communication, division of labor, group decision making,
compromise, and group brainstorming—all appropriate middle
grade goals. In fact, Newstetter (2000) notes that cognitive
development is supported by collaborative learning, group interaction,
and social negotiation.
Another advantage of PBL lies in its emphasis on
learner support through mastery goals rather than through the
performance goals approach, which emphasizes fact retrieval and
competitive accuracy. Meece et al. (2003) note that the transition from
elementary to middle grades often entails a shift from the mastery (or
learning) goals practices of the earlier grades to the more performance
goal approach of traditional secondary settings, even though middle
grade students demonstrate an orientation toward learner-centered
mastery goals. Combined with these middle grade learning needs are
middle grade social and developmental needs:
During adolescence, young people are becoming
more knowledgeable and skillful, more independent, and more focused on
peer relations and social status. With its focus on the unique needs of
all learners, the use of learner-centered teaching practices may be
particularly beneficial for creating learning environments that are
better matched to the developmental need of young adolescents. (Meece
et al., p. 471)
The learner-centered approach is also linked to
increased self-efficacy and student achievement. As students work
collaboratively, they create supportive learning communities; and they
also develop active learning strategies, conceptual understanding, and
higher level thinking skills. Finally, as students apply their ideas,
select solutions, and create responses, they receive the validation of
an artifact “honoring student voices” (Meece, et
al., p. 470).
The Audience
This
thought leads to consideration of the audience who will honor those
student voices and the role of that audience in PBL. A key attribute of
project-based learning is the collaborative construction of an artifact
for an authentic, non-classroom audience (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx,
& Soloway, 1994). In fact, the end goal of developing a product
for an authentic audience is a distinct feature which sets
project-based learning apart from more traditional models. Students
typically show greater dedication in producing a quality, finished
product when they know they will have an audience beyond the classroom
(McGrath et al., 1997). Although there is no single definition of PBL,
authors agree that the external audience provides a guiding focus as
well as an end focus for students (McGrath, 2003; Newell, 2003).
Whether the audience is parents, students in another class, students in
another country, judges, or an external community of interest, the
audience exists to appreciate, perhaps to judge or evaluate, or to
question and learn from the artifact (McGrath). “There is a
good deal of evidence that students work harder and polish up their
projects to a higher degree when there is an audience and a deadline
for that visit from the audience” (McGrath, p. 52). This
summation of audience importance is affirmed by others, as well
(McGrath, et al., 1997; Penuel, Korbak, Yarnall, & Pacpaco,
2001).
In addition to being receivers of the artifact,
the audience also plays an important role in the assessment portions of
the project. From the beginning, as the driving question and
appropriate goals are considered, the students are involved in
researching, developing deep understanding, and creating a product
designed to show the audience what they have learned (McGrath, 2003;
Newell, 2003). As they work, they continually revise their product with
the audience in mind. Thus, the audience is a driving force throughout
the design phase and in the assessment phase. McGrath even notes that
in addition to providing a formative focus, audience awareness reminds
the students to avoid wasting time in computer play. Throughout the
project then, the presence of an audience reminds the students to
maintain focus on content clarity and artifact design for a finished
result.
Technology-Based Tools
and Hypertext Creation
The
benefits of using technology-based tools to design and develop a
finished artifact in PBL are acknowledged by various authors and by the
development of technology standards for education. Project-based
learning which incorporates technology appears to increase
students’ motivation, research effort, and product
presentation; and the use of technology can help the students maintain
task engagement in complex projects (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Newell
(2003) further proposes that PBL “also refocuses the usage of
technology from an ancillary or peripheral use to a central and
integral part of the process” (p. 5). Technology-based tools
are used to support communication and cognitive skills as the students
collaboratively conduct research to answer the driving question in PBL
and then present their result to their audience. In fact, the extensive
use of technology in education has resulted in the creation of national
standards by which states may measure their technology infusion. The
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] offers
national educational technology standards [NETS] which have been
utilized in some form by more than 90 percent of the state departments
of education in the United States (ISTE NETS, n.d.). These standards,
which are provided in categories by age group, include technology use
as a tool for communication, research, problem-solving and
decision-making, all key ingredients in developing a final PBL product
for audience appraisal.
Further, hypertext creation by students
“is among the most complete and engaging of
constructivist/constructionist activities” (Jonassen, Myers,
and McKillop, 1996, p. 94). There are numerous advantages in employing
hypertext authoring in PBL construction and presentation. The design of
the hypertext supports development of thinking skills (Spoehr, 1993)
and offers students a creative experience as they use technology to
construct learning (Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1989). In
terms of underlying skills, the act of designing a learning product
supports content learning (Newstetter, 2000) and encourages the
acquisition and use of the knowledge (Perkins, 1986). Several authors
comment on the positive effects which hypertext construction has on
student motivation: increased self-esteem and self-confidence (McGrath
et al., 1997; Scheidler, 1993) and enhanced intrinsic goals in learning
(Liu & Rutledge, 1997). Further evidence also suggests that
collaborative use of hypertext tools to design knowledge artifacts
supports intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and meaningful learning
(Erickson & Lehrer, 2000; Krajcik et al., 1994). The design
skills and cognitive skills which develop during such processes also
generalize to new situations (Flavell, 1976).
As students design and create their end products
in hypertext, they develop problem-solving and management skills which
are transferable to other learning contexts (Liu, 2003). Carver,
Lehrer, Connell, & Erickson (1992) list sixteen separate higher
order thinking skills which are related to workplace success and which
are incorporated in multimedia and hypertext design. These include
question posing, deciding on the nature of the problem, construction of
new information, information analysis and interpretation, timeline
creation, allocation of resources and time to different segments of the
project, role assignment, segmenting and classifying information,
developing a product structure, developing media choices, transferring
the content design into a presentation medium, developing a structure,
juggling constraints such as time and equipment, soliciting peer
feedback, articulating intentions, and public presentations (Carver et
al.). Liu concurs that these higher order skills are employed in
hypertext design in PBL. Using these skills, students focus on the
demands of the project and the expectations of the audience as they
consider the problem, develop the response, and finally transfer the
response into a public presentation medium for the audience (Liu). In
addition to displaying this student product publicly, hypertext that is
published to the Internet carries the artifact to an even wider
audience than traditional forms of display, thus increasing the
consequence of presentation and its significance for the learner.
Despite the benefits, there are challenging
considerations involved in student authoring via hypertext creation.
Collaborative hypertext design is a complex task with many social,
cognitive, and process demands (Liu, 2003). Any task that is quite
complex in terms of cognitive and management demands requires more
student buy-in (Perkins, 1991); and for many unprepared students, those
demands may exceed their independent ability levels. The necessary
higher-level thinking skills are quite challenging, and students often
lack the intrinsic motivation to engage in such cognitive activities
voluntarily (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). In addition, students typically
require extensive teacher scaffolding as they confront the demands of
design technique and multimedia tool usage (Liu). Adding to the
discussion of task demands, Heller (1990) notes that students may lack
the technology skills required to create hypertext and to deal with the
complexities of the medium. Current web authoring software facilitates
the process by reducing the creators’ need to write code, but
the task of web page creation still remains complex. Therefore,
students typically require explicit instruction, coaching and modeling
by the teacher or another more knowledgeable individual, practice of
design skills and higher level cognitive skills, and continued
formative feedback (Liu; Liu & Rutledge, 1997; Carver et al.,
1992). Commenting on the time required, Chen and McGrath (2003) state
that most PBL units which use hypertext design last for two to four
months. With regard to time requirements, Liu notes the importance of
repeating hypertext design skills with new projects to generalize skill
usage; and he also notes that the process takes at least one semester
for students to learn the independence, responsibility, and self
direction which are necessary for success. Liu further discusses
student needs which must be considered in order to have successful
hypertext design in PBL: the high level of cognitive skills, the
ability to use multimedia tools, the ability to work cooperatively as a
team, resource management skills, time management skills in terms of
working toward a deadline, commitment, the collaborative skills
necessary to resolve conflicts productively, and communication skills.
Considering these challenges, several
researchers have studied the use of hypertext authoring in elementary,
middle, and high school grades. Commenting on a comparative study of
elementary students who learned and applied hypermedia design and those
students who did not, Liu and Pedersen (1998) found that students
involved with hypermedia demonstrated increased planning, creativity,
and collaborative skills, despite a lack of difference in the final
product quality of the two groups. The students using hypertext in the
above inquiry also stated that they valued activities which employed
greater thinking. Elementary students who use hypertext design show
increased motivation and use of higher order thinking skills as they
work (Liu & Pedersen). With respect to middle grade students,
Liu (2003) notes that time management, resource management, and
regulation of effort are especially difficult during hypertext
authoring activities; however, he also notes that the middle grade
students demonstrate improved process skills with time and experience.
In fact, after one semester of intense and repeated work as hypermedia
designers, the middle grade students showed that they were aware of the
importance of planning, designing, and testing their solutions in
hypertext creation (Liu & Hsiao, 2002). It is important to note
that Liu and Hsiao studied design, less as a process for simple project
display via hypertext and more as a process for multimedia presentation
of a more complex end product, including creation of digital video and
audio clips, animation, and graphics.
As students mature, their abilities increase;
and high school students require less effort and are able to produce
more complex and more complete artifacts using hypertext design (Liu,
2003). A study of ninth grade history students revealed their ability
to design and collaborate effectively as well as their ability to
increase time on task, again with skills improving over several
projects (Lehrer, Erickson, & Connell, 1994). As design tasks
become more complex and reflect the hierarchy of informational
relationships and the structure of concept maps through chunking and
linking of information, high school students face a greater challenge
in hypertext design.
In a study by Chen and McGrath (2003) involving
complex design of hypertext to reflect this relational structuring of
information for the concept water, high school
students stated that they experienced greater difficulty and less
perceived control with such a complicated conceptual task. The large
number of links to and from subordinate concept pages, the complexities
of showing the structure and hierarchy of concepts, navigational
issues, and “the constantly changing interrelationships among
concepts” appeared to cause some design teams to have
difficulty “presenting their projects with clarity”
(Chen & McGrath, p. 410).
Even with older students, then, it is most
important to consider the abilities of the students and the demands of
the task. Students with less developed cognitive skills or with less
organized knowledge structures may focus on the more concrete aspects
of media design rather than more abstract considerations of knowledge
design (Lehrer, Erickson, & Connell, 1994; Chen &
McGrath, 2003). “To promote optimal learning and engagement
of all students, it is important to consider individual
students’ skill levels and the challenges involved in the
tasks of hypermedia design” (Chen & McGrath, p. 416).
Thus, the use of PBL and hypertext creation in instruction should match
the abilities and needs of the learners with the nature and demands of
the task in order to encourage and enable students.
The use of hypertext creation empowers students
and encourages them to learn with hypermedia, not just from it
(Jonassen et al., 1996). Beyond the collection and display of
information gained through Internet research, hypermedia tools can
sustain cognitive engagement in the learning task, as well as student
motivation (Chen & McGrath, 2003). Chen and McGrath further
state that current research in motivation is compatible with the theory
of flow. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes a state of flow, in which
deep concentration and highly focused involvement in a task which is
both challenging and achievable will result in a sense of enjoyment and
effortlessness. Studying people working with computers, Ghani and
Deshpande (1994) found that the flow experience is related to the level
of perceived challenge, the individual’s willingness to
explore computer use voluntarily, and his/her sense of being in control
and not at the mercy of the technology task. Working with enjoyable and
highly focused effort, willingness to explore voluntarily, and being in
control and not at the mercy of a task are positive states for
students—states that enhance intrinsic motivation and
engagement in learning (Ghani and Deshpande).
Learners, however, frequently encounter
instructional demands which are more difficult. When students are
pushed to work beyond the independent level of their ability, the
teacher must consider necessary assistance. Vygotsky (1978) proposed a
zone of proximal development in which students are able to achieve at
more difficult levels with assistance. When supported by appropriate
scaffolding and when performing within this zone, students are more
likely to increase their abilities to reach higher levels than they
could independently and to experience a more enjoyable and focused
learning experience. As capabilities and positive experiences increase,
the zone moves higher. It follows that in order for hypertext authoring
to reach its potential for increasing the engagement of students in
PBL, the students should have experience in hypertext creation, as well
as the confidence and sense of control that such experience brings.
High school students benefit from having simple design experience and
exploratory opportunities, and then they are better able to prepare for
the more complex task of ordering information (Liu, 2003). This raises
the issue of providing middle grade students with a similar opportunity
to explore and gain experience in working with web authoring software
to showcase artifacts for their audience, without demanding the more
complex and abstract aspects of design.
In their high school design study involving
hierarchical structuring of concepts related to water, Chen and McGrath
(2003) note that the activities of researching to locate and select
appropriate information and then relating and organizing the
information were the most engaging design tasks, as measured by student
report of enjoyment, concentration, control, exploration, and
challenge. The more abstract and complex tasks of chunking, linking,
and naming paths were regarded as less enjoyable. “Their
perceived enjoyment while working on the [research and organizational]
task appeared to increase their willingness to engage in this complex
learning process” (Chen & McGrath, p. 410). The
research skills for locating and selecting information and the skills
needed to organize information are appropriate middle grade goals, as
well; and this simpler aspect of project design should promote positive
signs of middle grade engagement in learning. Another aspect of
hypertext design which should support the needs of middle grade
learners is the availability of immediate visual feedback and options
for immediate change. Chen and McGrath note that hypermedia tool use
appeared to support the students in their attempts to visualize and
present their knowledge in their web page artifact by providing a
flexible way to make changes. The choices and immediate feedback
heightened the students’ sense of control and play.
“This engaging process resulted in the students’
perception of hypermedia as an expressive tool, and they often regarded
their projects as their self-reflections” (Chen &
McGrath, p. 415-416). When PBL tasks are cognitively and experientially
appropriate, middle grade students may also experience this level of
engagement in learning.
What, though, does engagement in learning look
like? How does a teacher recognize this desirable condition? Just as
there is no single definition of PBL, there is no single definition or
description of engaged learning, though educators and researchers
discuss and pursue it. From Piaget’s study of equilibration
in cognitive development (Woolfolk, 1987), to Vygotsky’s
recognition of the higher level of learner enjoyment and success that
is attainable in the zone of proximal development when more
knowledgeable others scaffold appropriately (1978), to
Csikszentmihalyi’s description of the deep yet effortless
state of flow (1990), authors have theorized about and investigated the
intense and highly productive state called engaged learning. This
engagement, however, is an internal brain function which is difficult
to define or describe.
Despite the lack of consensus, authors agree
that students demonstrate indicative behaviors during highly focused
learning activities. Noting Csikszentmihalyi’s flow state
with its deep concentration, sense of control, and response to
challenge (1990), Chen and McGrath regard engaged learning as an active
state and define engagement as enjoyment,
concentration, perceived control, exploration, and perceived challenge.
They also note the presence of student curiosity, deep involvement, and
loss of a sense of time during periods of learning engagement (2003).
McGrath notes that learners who have an authentic audience for their
end products demonstrate engaged learning by maintaining focus on their
content clarity and artifact design (2003). McGrath also notes that
student engagement in inquiry and analysis leads to deep understanding
and promotes research and knowledge construction (2002, 2003). Liu
(2003) remarks on increased student engagement which is related to
management and design skills. Paris and Ayres discuss self-regulated
learners who are “active participants in their own
learning” (1994, p. 26). For students who direct their own
learning, Paris and Ayres found that they exercise choice in goals and
strategies, have a need for challenge, take risks to achieve more,
control their learning, collaborate as they read and write, construct
meaning, take ownership for their learning, seek rewarding experiences,
and self-monitor their performance and progress. Depictions of
engagement in learning, such as Chen & McGrath and Paris
& Ayres present, follow a common idea of focused and worthwhile
concentration with a purpose. Despite agreement about the importance
and general nature of engagement in learning, however, there remains no
commonly accepted definition or description.
Conclusion:
Project-based
learning is proposed as a potential solution to the issue that students
demonstrate a decline in motivation in middle school (Meece et al.,
2003). Working collaboratively in small groups to investigate a driving
question which is open-ended in nature, students exercise choice and
control in their learning decisions. They use higher level thinking
skills as they develop strategies, solve problems, make decisions, and
construct knowledge together (Liu, 2003). An important element
throughout PBL is the creation of a learning artifact for an authentic
audience. Consideration of this audience, in fact, helps the students
remain focused on the requirements of the project and encourages
diligence toward the final consequence: the final presentation. The
challenge and intrigue of PBL is heightened by student creation of
hypertext to display their final product on a website. Agreeing on the
motivational benefits of hypertext authoring, various studies (e.g.
Chen & McGrath, 2003; Liu; Liu & Hsiao, 2002; Lehrer et
al., 1994) have found high school students to be most capable in
hypertext design and middle grade students to be noticeably less
capable. The nature of hypertext design tasks may vary, however, from
simple showcasing of an end product (Liu & Pedersen, 1998) to
more complex management tasks (Liu). Those tasks may also include
highly complex content design of web pages which graphically depict the
relationship of knowledge structures via levels and sublevels (Chen
& McGrath). In short, hypertext creation tasks can range from a
simple web page display of an artifact to a complex design of a website
which reflects the hierarchical structure of the content information.
To design a PBL unit allowing students to work
within their zone of proximal development, learners’ skill
levels must be matched with the demands of the task to avoid
frustration at one end of the continuum and boredom at the other.
Spitzer (1996) remarks that most learning tasks are boring, and it is
important to include motivators such as actions and hands on learning,
choice, social interaction, error tolerance, feedback, challenge, fun,
and recognition or consequences in learning contexts. As noted
throughout this review, hypertext authoring in PBL provides
Spitzer’s motivators. Hypertext creation also increases
motivation toward learning, encourages creativity, and supports the
development of cognitive skills and design skills; further, hypertext
authoring challenges students to consider the needs of the audience and
develop strategies for constructing their information in a hypermedia
artifact for presentation (Liu, 2003). The creative problem-solving and
decision-making potential of hypertext creation for artifact display in
PBL is powerful.
The literature, however, does not agree upon
the suitability of hypertext design in the middle grades, largely as a
result of the different types of design tasks which have been utilized
and noted above. On one hand, the use of hypertext design in PBL has
the potential at all levels to increase student challenge, creativity,
intrinsic motivation, engagement in meaningful learning, and
development of transferable skills, as discussed. On the other hand,
complex design requirements can include advanced problem solving,
extensive scaffolding and teacher guidance, broad resource management
skills, higher level technical skills, and challenges with time
constraints. Since student ability should be reasonably matched with
task demand to minimize frustration and potential failure, perhaps the
simpler aspects of media design for project display are appropriate
starting points for middle grade students, rather than the more
abstract demands of knowledge structure design. Rather than utilizing
PBL units which require two to four months for completion, middle grade
students might be well served with shorter, more manageable tasks in
order to gain the skills and confidence needed for more advanced
hypertext design tasks later. The opportunity for technical exploration
should allow for the development of skills, appreciation of the
creative possibilities offered by web authoring technology, and
increased self confidence in learning with technology.
As noted in this review, the literature focuses
on studies of longer PBL units, more complex design tasks, creation of
multimedia products, and the greater difficulty which middle grade
students may have with these tasks. A gap in the current literature
exists concerning middle grade creation of hypertext in PBL for the
simple purpose of showcasing artifacts for the audience via the
Internet. Will such PBL units allow for positive levels of engagement
in learning with technology for middle grade students? The proposed
applied project sought to investigate signs of middle grade student
engagement in project-based learning when the duration of the unit is
less than one month and when the students design hypertext as a vehicle
for the display of constructed knowledge.
Methods
Qualitative Research
Paradigm
Researchers employ qualitative methods when
seeking data that is based on open-ended observation in a natural
setting, rather than based on measurable results of hypothesis testing
(Creswell, 2003). In order to explore possible signs of engagement in
learning, this study focused on student activity in the classroom and
computer lab and described patterns of behavior which emerged during
hypertext creation of a PBL artifact. Qualitative research was
appropriate for this study because it focused on understanding the
participants’ experiences in context. Further, qualitative
research allowed me to explore descriptive data which emerged during
the study and interpret that data. As the 7 th grade students engaged
in a PBL unit to construct meaning collaboratively and design the web
pages to showcase their end products, I observed and described their
behavior carefully for analysis. Because there was little research on
signs of engaged learning in 7 th graders as they create hypertext
artifacts for authentic audiences in PBL activities, the exploration
which qualitative research provides was indicated.
Strategy of Inquiry:
Case Study Design
Since
the case study is a strategy of inquiry which explores the process and
activities of participants, it is especially appropriate for this
study. Based largely on the observations of and the interviews with the
participants, case studies allow the researcher to explore, collect,
and describe data which is open-ended and emerges throughout the study.
The intent of qualitative research which employs case studies is to
describe developing themes from the data and to analyze the data for
verifiable interpretations (Creswell, 2003). Stake (1995) discussed the
value of using the case study for exploring the process of one or more
individuals via a variety of data collection types for a given period
of time. This case study focused on four students during a three week
long PBL unit and will include careful observation and rich description
of their behaviors during the study, analysis of their hypertext
artifacts, examination of the students’ reflective responses
to open-ended questions in journals, and interviews with the
participants during and at the end of the project. The data collected
from these four sources underwent analysis for themes or categories
which may or may not emerge concerning engaged learning in the 7 th
grade participants.
Researcher’s
Role
Creswell
(2003) notes that “qualitative research is interpretative
research, with the inquirer typically involved in a sustained and
intensive experience with participants” (p. 184). Each
qualitative researcher brings personal experience to a study, and the
interpretations which emerge are shaped to some extent by his or her
own background and prior experience. My six years of experience as a
middle grade teacher have shown me how unpredictable early adolescents
can be. As their cognitive and social/emotional skills develop at
uneven rates, they gradually become more capable academically. Yet
during this time of great physical and intellectual change, they often
exhibit declining motivation in academic areas, due to a shift from the
mastery and learning goals of elementary years to performance goals in
most middle school models (Meece, 2003; Meece, Herman, &
McCombs, 2003). With its emphasis on active learning that is relevant
and meaningful, constructivist instruction focuses on learning goals
and centers more on challenging the critical thinking of students in a
social context of exploration than on performance and competition. I
believe that capturing middle grade students’ attention and
imagination in a collaborative learning environment is important in
designing instruction for them. I felt that brief PBL units, which
incorporate hypertext creation as a means of reaching a wide authentic
audience, might hook 7 th grade learners. The question before me was
whether they would play with the technology, become frustrated with the
demands of the task, or become engaged in meaningful learning.
Glesne & Peshkin (1992) note the care
which is essential in “backyard” research, or
research in ones immediate work setting. Confidentiality is vital in
maintaining student privacy, and the inquirer must guard against bias
and inappropriate interpretations by using triangulation to verify
findings and interpretations. All of these considerations were honored
in this study. I explored this area in an honest and ethical manner
while protecting the rights and interests of my students. I obtained
permission to conduct the study from the school where I work; in fact,
my principal stated interest in the process and its implications for
future student technology use. Students and their parents received
explanation of the study and signed a release form to participate in
the study. Of the students who volunteered to be included in the study,
and whose parents also agreed in writing, four were covertly selected,
having been purposefully matched for language and reading comprehension
scores on the IOWA and for demonstrated compatibility in collaborative
work. None of the students knew who was included in the study, and
students chosen for the case study were referenced by numbers. All
students in both American history classes participated in the PBL unit
and presented their artifacts in hypertext for viewing by the entire 7
th grade in their school. The data collected via observation, student
hypertext documents, student journals, and interviews was analyzed and
compared to verify findings and patterns which emerged.
Location and Context:
The
study took place in each of two 7 th grade honors American history
classes in a suburban, college-preparatory private school which
includes pre-K through 12 th grade. Each class had one pair of students
in the study, and they worked together in two person collaborative
groups, which is typical of PBL. Since the school uses a modified block
schedule, the students participated three days each week in 50 minute
periods and one day each week in a 90 minute period. Working in one of
three computer labs, each student had access to networked personal
computers with high speed Internet connection and with Microsoft Office
and Dreamweaver software installed. The students saved their work on
the school’s server in password protected folders to prevent
access and alterations by other students. The study lasted three weeks.
Each year the 7 th grade students in this school
take a four day school trip to Washington, D.C. to learn about the
nation’s capital. In preparation for this trip, students have
traditionally participated in a two week unit of study involving
lecture, extensive note completion, and familiarization with pictures
from a 12 page guide book, followed by a 200 item true/false, scantron
test. Students in past years reported lack of interest in the study.
The principal and the social studies department had expressed interest
in changing this unit. This year the students in my two honors American
history classes participated in the PBL unit to explore via the
Internet the locations and information about Washington. They used
inquiry strategies to guide their research, and they selected their own
topics for inclusion in the html documents they created and presented
to the entire 7 th grade the week prior to the trip. They
collaboratively constructed knowledge about various aspects of
Washington, DC which they presented via a website to an authentic
audience of their peers, teachers, principal, and parents. This
activity formed the PBL unit purpose, content, and audience for this
study.
Participants
Four
participants were selected from two classes of 7 th grade honors
American history students in a college preparatory, private suburban
school in the southeastern United States. Representing diverse ethnic
backgrounds, the students achieved above average reading comprehension
and language scores on the IOWA in order to be placed in the classes.
Selection of participants was governed by
student willingness to be included, parent permission, self pairing of
students, and my choice in order to offer as balanced a collection as
possible, given such a small pool of participants. During the second
week of school, I explained the upcoming project to the students. All
thirty-seven honors American history students in the 7 th grade at the
host school volunteered to be included. At the PTO open house night, I
explained the project and my need for parental permission to the
parents, and I answered their questions. The parents of all students of
European American and Indian origin and all but one African American
student and one Asian American student gave permission for their
students to be included.
The students were instructed to consider
possible working partners during the next week and be prepared to form
partnership pairs by the beginning of the project a week later. Due to
the odd number, there was one class with a group of three. As my
students announced their preferred working partners, I analyzed each
team for learning variables and for IOWA scores in reading
comprehension, total language, social studies, and total scores, in
order to achieve as much cognitive parity yet individual diversity as
possible among the students selected. Rather than observing four
students each working with other partners not in the study, I decided
to observe students working together in pairs, since collaboration is
an important aspect of project-based learning and an aspect noted by
Chen and McGrath (2003) and Paris and Ayers (1994) as influencing
engaged learning.
Although all teams would have been excellent
choices, one pair from each class emerged as the project participants.
For the purpose of the study, these four volunteer students were not
informed of their selection. All students participated in the PBL
activities, but only the four initially selected, based on matching
scores and demonstrated collaborative compatibility, were a part of the
case study.
Central Question
The
purpose of the case study was to explore the following question: What
signs of engaged learning emerge during hypertext artifact development
by 7 th grade students for authentic audiences in project-based
learning? For the purpose of this study, hypertext artifacts were the
knowledge end products in project-based learning, which were developed
using the web authoring software, Dreamweaver. The sub-questions
included:
- What learning behaviors and attitudes do
students exhibit when they collaboratively design hypertext format,
including the appearance and technological features of the medium?
- What learning behaviors and attitudes do
students exhibit when they collaboratively construct hypertext PBL
artifacts, including constructed knowledge?
Data Collection Process
The
case study explored and described
- observations of demonstrated behavior and
activities during PBL activities, performed by myself as an observer
and not a participant,
- artifacts in the form of student created html
documents,
- interview information obtained by
student-written responses to reflective, open-ended questions in
student journals, and
- interview information obtained through
informal conversations between me and each participant throughout the
unit and through a more formal interview at the conclusion of the unit.
During the three week course of the PBL
activities, I engaged in continual observation and recorded the
participants’ behavior every 3-4 minutes minimally, and as
changes in demonstrated behaviors and activities occurred, using an
observation form (Appendix E). The students stored their research
notes, artifacts, and student html documents electronically on the
school network for security, and I collected them on my website for
analysis and for public display after student completion. Students
reflected upon and responded to open-end questions in their student
learning journals for the project. I collected the individual journal
sheets daily for analysis. Each day as the students worked, I conducted
informal discussions, requested clarifications of student statements,
and scaffolded as necessary. At the conclusion of the unit, I
interviewed at least eleven students from each class in order to
covertly analyze the take-away impressions of the four participants.
All students remained uninformed about the identity of the four
participants in the case study.
Data Analysis
The
data was collected daily and analyzed for emerging patterns as the
study progressed. Analysis of the data included rich, detailed
description of the behaviors. I collated results on an ongoing basis to
discover any themes or categories of behavior which emerged. Since, as
an inquirer with possible bias, I could have undoubtedly filtered the
data through the personal lens of a middle grade teacher, I
triangulated findings and used caution in interpreting results. I also
employed peer debriefing with two veteran middle grade teachers, one
well versed in educational technology and the other not experienced in
the use of technology in the classroom. Although their comments did not
provide a basis for analysis and are not be included in the study, the
impressions of these two individuals alerted me to potentially biased
judgments on my part and assisted in balanced and neutral
interpretation.
The four means of data collection were analyzed
as follows. I carefully documented the observations of student behavior
and demonstrated attitude during PBL activities for hypertext creation.
Findings were categorized by date, by student, and by task; included
descriptive notes and reflective notes; and were studied for signs of
engaged learning and interpreted for emerging patterns or themes. Each
day I noted the progress toward completion of the artifact; and upon
completion of the project, I analyzed those student html documents for
content quality, constructed meaning, and signs of engaged learning.
The students completed personal learning journals for reflection upon
their experiences. They were encouraged to write their impressions
spontaneously, but they also received open-ended interview style
questions which they also addressed in their journals. These written
views and opinions were collected daily for analysis of student
statements and descriptions of their learning experiences. Finally,
interview notes were analyzed daily for evidence of frustration, play,
or engaged learning. These informal student comments were collected for
a day by day view, as well as an overall view of their process. The
closing interview was also analyzed for the students’
concluding impressions of the value of their experience.
Limitations
There
are several limitations to this study. First, since the four selected
case study participants have above average reading comprehension and
language scores and are such a small sample, the study is not
generalizable to all 7 th grade students in their graduating class.
Also, given the fairly rapid physical and intellectual growth which
many 12 to 13 year olds experience during the 7 th grade year, the
findings of the study are limited to the performance of these students
during their second month in the 7 th grade. In addition, since the
research was based largely on interpretation of data analysis, I
considered it necessary to observe carefully, record precisely, and
confer frequently with my peer debriefers to avoid bias in my
interpretations.
Few researchers have explored the capabilities
and engaged learning behavior of 7 th grade authors of hypertext PBL
artifacts. Of those who have, there is lack of consensus about the
advisability of using this web authoring tool with middle grade
students to facilitate engaged learning. These students change so
quickly as they mature. Despite the limitations of this study and the
lack of generalizability, it provides a forum for the discussion of
signs of engaged learning and for newly emerging questions .
Results and Discussion
Case Study Participants
One
pair of girls and one of boys presented fairly matched IOWA scores
between the two teams and a representative variety of learning and
performance styles (see Table 1). G1 and G2 formed Team 1, and B1 and
B2 formed Team 2. Each team was composed of strong academic achievers,
with one student having higher IOWA scores than the other that are
beyond the standard error range. G1 and B1 show a preference for visual
or visual/auditory learning and for more teacher guidance and feedback
than their counterparts. Both G1 and B1 display more inquisitive and
thoughtful behavior in class than their counterparts. Both G2 and B2
show greater independence, academically and socially.
Table 1: Demographics for the Four Participants
________________________________________________________________________
|
Description
|
G1
|
G2
|
B1
|
B2
|
|
Age
|
Mid 12
|
Young 13
|
Mid 12
|
Almost 13
|
|
Sex
|
Female
|
Female
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Ethnicity
|
African American
|
Euro American
|
Euro American
|
Euro American
|
|
Exceptionality
|
None
|
None
|
Diagnosed mild auditory perception
disorder (tolerance fading*)
|
None
|
|
Duration at school
|
7 years
|
1 month
|
9 years
|
2 years
|
|
Preferred learning
style
|
Mixed auditory visual, takes excellent
notes in class and during reading, creates graphic organizers
|
Reads and takes adequate notes
independently; analytical; listens
in class attentively
|
Visual, kinesthetic; takes excellent
notes in class and during reading,
uses prepared graphic organizers
|
Reads and takes notes quickly,
independently; analytical; listens in class attentively
|
|
In-class academic
independence style
|
Seeks teacher guidance and feedback,
continues discussions after class
|
Independent worker, occasionally requests
teacher response, seeks peer feedback
|
Seeks teacher guidance and feedback,
continues discussions after class
|
Independent worker, occasionally requests
teacher response
|
|
IOWA Stanines
|
9
|
10
|
9
|
10
|
|
Class grade
|
A
|
A
|
A
|
A
|
|
Writing skills
|
Excellent,
complete information
|
Excellent,
usually complete information
|
Excellent,
complete information
|
Very good, brief, usually complete
information
|
|
Approach to content in class
|
Highly focused; questions, comments, and
discusses freely; relates previous knowledge
|
Focused;
questions, comments occasionally with class; frequently chats
|
Highly focused; questions, comments, and
discusses freely; relates previous knowledge
|
Highly focused; gives analytical
comments, discusses freely, seldom asks questions
|
|
Academic attitude
|
Firm work ethic, determination to
do well, desire to understand
|
Determined to achieve high
grades, motivated by approval
|
Highly motivated
to understand concepts, firm work ethic
|
Pursues both content and grades,
motivated student of history
|
|
Social interaction style
|
Thoughtful,
serious, pleasant
|
Vivacious,
talkative, highly involved socially
|
Pleasant, talkative, finds humor easily
|
Outgoing, athletic, serious in class
|
*B1’s auditory focus is diminished by
background noise, he has difficulty discriminating speech sounds for
words although his acuity is normal, and he has a short term auditory
memory deficit which causes him to forget the beginning of spoken
presentations without visual accompaniment, while recalling the ending
portion clearly.
All four students received a nine week
exploratory course in the sixth grade focusing on technology skills.
Basic word processing and presentation skills were addressed with
Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, and the students learned simple
applications of Inspiration for organizing information. They learned
about Internet safety and the importance of evaluating the reliability
of websites. Team 1 had a social studies teacher who did not integrate
technology into instruction; team 2’s social studies teacher
incorporated technology almost daily, in class or for homework. None of
the four have been on the school’s web construction team, and
none of them had prior experience with Dreamweaver.
The Project-Based
Learning Unit
The
unit unfolded in two major sections: preparation for artifact creation
and the actual creation of the web pages for the audience. Beginning on
the Monday after Labor Day, this PBL unit had already generated
substantial curiosity in the two classes. Students said they were eager
to move from text books to computers, which they felt would offer more
potential for exploration and interactive learning. G2, B1, and B2
expressed confidence in their Internet exploration skills, while G1
remained somewhat quieter about the prospect. The students began by
sharing what they already knew about Washington, DC from previous
experiences and knowledge. After collecting all ideas, and posting them
for the class on the computer lab overhead TV screens, I introduced the
school media specialist (SMS). SMS gave a PowerPoint presentation which
she created for this class about productive Internet exploration using
Google’s Advanced Search. The PowerPoint also modeled
eye-catching and thought provoking information and pictures about
Washington, to further intrigue the students about the possibilities
that lay before them.
Having already explored Internet resources, I
urged the students to limit their searches to .gov and .edu sites to
increase their likelihood of finding excellent resources on Washington,
DC quickly and efficiently. I did not mention the pornography sites
which use Washington names with .com URLs. In this way, the seventh
graders were able to use the Internet productively without triggering
the school firewall, which might have triggered further unsavory
exploration at home.
Following SMS’s presentation, the
students began exploring the Internet for information about Washington
and began to note additional topics for the project. At the end of that
class, I gathered all of the proposed topics, led a discussion to
discover any relationships or categories that emerged, and shifted the
amassed list into thirteen topics via student suggestion and text
manipulation in Word, shown on the overhead TVs (see Appendix A). Next,
the student pairs requested their top four choices for a topic to
pursue and then received their final topic. The pair of boys was able
to get their first choice since they were the only students to rank
Military Memorials as their number one preference. They laughed, gave
each other high-five hand slaps, and immediately began designing their
site, prior to further research. The two girls picked two topics that
were popular, and they received their second choice: What kind of
government do we have and how was it formed? They told me they thought
the topic was important, but they were not sure how to begin their
research. They did not begin planning their web page but, instead,
talked about how to locate needed information.
Next, all students considered how explaining
their topic would contribute to an answer for the overarching question
for the entire project: Why should Americans visit Washington, DC? Each
pair developed a set of key questions which they hoped to answer as
they prepared their projects. B1 and B2 agreed that their questions
about the World War II, Iwo Jima/Marine, Korean War, and Vietnam
memorials should include the following:
- “What happened and why did they
make it?”
- "When did it happen, why did we fight, and
did we win?”
- Why should we learn about it now?”
- “Why did the builder make it look
like this?”
During the first round of Internet exploration,
B1 had learned that the 19 statues of soldiers reflected in the
mirrored surface of the Korean War wall produced 38 images, which
represented the 38 th parallel. He expressed curiosity to learn if the
other monuments had stories about the reasons for their designs, as
well. B1 and B2 each expressed excitement about the project and
impatience to begin. They told me they realized they would have to
research carefully to discover their answers; they would have to reduce
a lot of information to a description in their own words; and they
would need to organize their efforts and work collaboratively. Thus,
the pair of boys demonstrated curiosity, perceived challenge and
control, deep involvement, and a desire for exploration even before
reaching the web page construction stage.
Initially curious about their topic and sure
that it was important for a successful explanation of the value of
knowing about Washington, DC and its role in American government, the
girls decided to learn about America’s form of government and
how that government was formed and is currently run. Their questions
included
- “What kind of government do we
have?”
- “Is our government different from
others? Why?”
- “How did we get this kind of
government?”
- “What do the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution say?”
- “Will we see anything on the trip
that helps us understand our government?”
- “What do my friends want to
know?” (Awareness of audience)
As they resumed their research, however, G1 and
G2 discovered that there was too much information at the high school
and college reading level and too little that they could find easily at
their 7 th grade level. They began to understand that their topic could
be very complex and extensive, and they expressed concern to me. Since
our class studies had only gone through the colonial stage prior to the
start of the PBL unit, neither girl had formally studied the
Revolutionary War or the founding of the federal government since the
fourth grade. Both girls sought additional guidance from me, with G1
stating fear that she couldn’t find material and G2 stating
that there was nothing on the Internet on their topic. Rather that
allow them to select another topic, I suggested that they go talk with
SMS about database searches. They returned to the lab ten minutes
later, and worked together on one computer for the remainder of the
class time, reading and discussing the selections they found and
planning their course of action. They each had two books that they had
checked out of the library, as well.
The next day, armed with more understanding of
their topic, they returned to the Internet for information. I
periodically went to their stations to inquire about their progress and
answer questions. When possible, I answered their questions with
simpler questions which they could answer themselves. Although the pair
of girls began with a spirit of commitment and excitement for learning
about and explaining their topic, they quickly encountered difficulty
and realized they had a much more complex topic than they had thought.
Scaffolding from me and from SMS aided them in locating information
about their research questions, as well as meaningfully relating their
findings to their questions. The girls’ initial curiosity had
been quickly replaced by a sense of dread and inadequacy. Appropriate
scaffolding reinstated their sense of capability and ownership of their
learning outcome. Both said they knew they would have to work harder
that some other teams with easier topics. Their response to the
challenge and success after the scaffolding assistance seemed to deepen
their commitment again.
When both classes had topics and questions to
guide their research, I instructed them in electronic storage of their
work, creation and use of a resource file for their research, and basic
Dreamweaver instruction (see Appendix B) as preliminary scaffolds to
support their PBL work. Storage on the school server insured protection
from inadvertent tampering by other students. Furthermore, this type of
student storage insured that students could not work on their projects
at home—that I would be able to observe all of their work.
Next, I instructed them to open and save a Word document titled
Resources which would be used for research findings. They were directed
to save the titles and URLs of relevant websites, along with brief
identifying notes, as they explored the Internet for information and
images. When they felt they had gathered enough sites, they could
return to the resource page, connect to the sites via the links created
by the URLs in Word, and add notes and paste in small copies of
pictures which they could consider using in their own web pages. They
were cautioned that images would not be copied and pasted into
Dreamweaver and that pasting a picture onto the resource page was for
reference only. I advised them about discovering and avoiding copyright
protected images, and I cautioned against cloned sentences with slight
rewording efforts and other issues of plagiarism. The copyright and
plagiarism information were review items for these 7 th graders since
they have received instruction on honor code issues in academics since
early elementary years.
Since the students would undoubtedly complete
their preparatory tasks at different rates, I guided them in setting up
their Dreamweaver sites and learning basic web authoring skills,
including correct image saving procedures, prior to in-depth research.
Appendix B shows the student handout for later referral. B1 and B2
showed animated gestures and facial expressions as they learned the
basic techniques of font and background choices and the steps for
saving images to their newly established image folders in their
Washington Dreamweaver folders. B2 continually returned to the Internet
during the demonstration, and he had saved three pictures by the time
the other students were instructed to locate and save one. B1 remained
on task, asked me to see the picture he had saved, and asked if I liked
the font and color selections he had made. Both girls appeared
hesitant, as shown by deep concentration, looks at each others screens,
tentative efforts, and requests for one-on-one guidance. They quickly
projected a sense of control and confidence as they achieved success,
and were soon exploring the Dreamweaver options.
For the next few days, students worked at
individual rates to locate resources and relate the information they
found. Soon they were trimming unneeded sites, images, and information,
and they began forming answers to their questions and designing their
web pages. During this time, I facilitated learning efforts as needed
and continued to observe for signs of engaged learning in all students,
but especially in my four participants. Although my research questions
would be addressed more in the second part of the project when the
students began their actual web page construction, I felt this portion
of the project illustrated the learning styles of the participants and
especially their collaborative styles. G1 and G2 worked in tandem, in a
highly orchestrated fashion. They discussed each goal for each day,
worked on self assigned and agreed upon portions, discussed their
results, and completed their journals carefully each day. B1 and B2
each claimed two monuments to research and worked independently of each
other, with comments made when something unusual was discovered. They
appeared to save their collaborative efforts for the hypertext portion
of the project. B1 frequently called me over to his station to view his
progress and ask for my feedback. He was observed to ask B2 for
feedback on several occasions, but most comments to B2 were for sharing
something surprising rather than asking for assistance or confirmation.
I also noted the variation in the level of
scaffolding which was needed by individual students during this first
part of the project. The G1 and G2 requested scaffolding during this
information gathering and concept development phase more than the boys.
I feel that their requests were based on the complexity of their topic
and lack of substantial prior knowledge to guide their efforts, rather
than on lack of ability. They had chosen a topic which is addressed in
entire courses on government in high school and college. By seeking
help from their two more knowledgeable others, SMS and me, they had
found a way to deal with their dilemma. They had searched until they
realized the enormity of their task. They self monitored their lack of
progress and sought assistance, rather than collecting inadequate and
unrelated information. During this time of information gathering and
consideration of new meaning, all four participants concentrated on
their tasks, were deeply involved in their tasks, and worked hard to
construct new meaning instead of copying and pasting information to
fill space. All four expressed surprise each day at how quickly the
class time passed.
As the students neared the end of the
information gathering and assimilating portion of the project, I
reviewed them once more on the basics of Dreamweaver usage, reviewed
again the power of the Page Properties section, and showed, the classes
how to use tables to place text and images and how to create hyperlinks
and named anchors, via a reference tool (Appendix F). All previous
excitement was diminished compared to the new level. G1 and G2 said
that they recognized the links and anchors features from professional
websites they had visited. They chattered in an animated manner about
the links and anchors they would employ. B2 immediately grasped the
application of tables and worked on B1’s computer to show him
the design advantages of using tables. As many other students did, G1
and G2 initially stated confusion about the need for and creation of
tables until I created a sample table using their own materials to
accomplish what they wanted but were unable to achieve without tables.
Seeing the technique work in their own context convinced them of the
design advantage in using tables.
As the students began creating their hypertext
artifacts, they occasionally called on me to share achievements, to
request assistance on technical matters, or to solicit feedback on
their progress. Overall, however, they appeared highly focused on their
work and largely unaware of time passage or background noise. The level
of intense student attention to their tasks allowed me the opportunity
I needed to observe carefully for signs of engagement in learning
during their hypertext creation. By scaffolding early in the PBL unit
in both content and technology areas, and by encouraging the students
to explore the Internet, the process of information organization, and
Dreamweaver functions prior to hypertext creation, I had set the stage
for learner application of those skills. The time of playful
exploration was past. The students showed signs of working intently and
in a most engaged manner toward a goal: creating an artifact which
would answer an overarching question and be viewed online by their 7 th
grade peers.
Each day I collected data via direct
observation, informal interviews accomplished through conversations,
student comments in journals, and viewing the artifact under
construction. In order to avoid flipping papers and calling attention
to my actions, I kept with me a clipboard with my field notes. At four
minute intervals or as specific actions were noted, I stepped back from
the students and logged my observations. Many times I missed my four
minute target because a student or team requested my attention, but I
recorded as quickly and as much as I could. After their initial
difficulties conducting research and answering their self posed
questions, the two girls appeared to settle solidly into creating their
artifact in hypertext format. Both boys focused on their web page
formation even before finishing the collection of their information and
transforming it into their own new knowledge. As a result, they were
forced several times to renew their research and assimilation efforts.
In the end both groups completed their artifacts to their stated
satisfaction, with the boys finishing one day before the girls.
Reviewing my observation notes, I found that all
four participants showed signs of engagement in learning as they
created their web pages. Table 2 presents eleven indicators of engaged
learning which were observed during the first two days of hypertext
creation. These signs of engaged learning behavior or affective
response to engaged learning are among those noted by Chen and McGrath
(2003) and Paris and Ayres (1994). Some of the behaviors were visually
observed, such as attention to task, collaborating, and maintaining
focus on content or artifact design. Other, more internal behaviors or
attitudes, such as enjoyment, deep concentration, and curiosity, were
noted by overhearing conversations between partners and by my noting
simultaneous facial expressions. Initially, G1 and G2 indicated less
enjoyment, focus on design, and curiosity and exploration of choices.
B1 and B2, on the other hand, demonstrated less concentration, focus on
content as constructed meaning, and less awareness of their audience.
Table 2 Signs of Engagement in Learning During
First Two Days of Hypertext Creation
________________________________________________________________________
F = frequent and recurrent O = occasional
indication I = infrequent or missing
|
Indicators
|
G1
|
G2
|
B1
|
B2
|
|
Attention to task
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Deep Concentration
|
F
|
F
|
O
|
O
|
|
Enjoyment
|
O
|
O
|
F
|
F
|
|
Exploration of choices
|
I
|
I
|
F
|
F
|
|
Curiosity
|
I
|
I
|
F
|
F
|
|
Loss of sense of time
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Awareness of Audience
|
F
|
F
|
O
|
O
|
|
Maintains Focus on Content
|
F
|
F
|
O
|
O
|
|
Maintains Focus on Artifact
Design
|
O
|
O
|
F
|
F
|
|
Constructing Meaning
|
F
|
F
|
I
|
I
|
|
Collaborating
|
F
|
F
|
I
|
I
|
|
Self-monitoring Progress
|
F
|
O
|
I
|
I
|
During these first two days, the girls appeared
to be exerting more effort in managing the content of their artifact,
and they did not appear to be as at ease as the boys. G1 and G2
demonstrated fewer smiles, more intense stares at the monitors, and
less exploration with the style features of Dreamweaver. They did,
however, appear quite intent as they concentrated. B1 and B2 initially
attended less than the girls to the content and more to the style
features, including tables, image manipulation, and searching for
animated images to introduce their page. B2 asked me to show him how to
eliminate some of the background in an image, so I showed him the
cropping technique in Macromedia Fireworks MX 2004. Both boys expressed
the determination to get the program at home.
By the end of the hypertext creation period, the
girls had caught up with the boys in Dreamweaver style application, and
the boys had returned their primary focus to their content. Both groups
understood and capably used tables, links, and named anchors to
facilitate content placement and audience ease of use. Table 3 reflects
this greater technical confidence which the girls gained and the
greater attention to content and final preparation for the audience by
the boys. Once they felt they had capably addressed their content, G1
and G2 focused more on the design aspects of the artifact development
and demonstrated increased enjoyment, curiosity, and exploration. After
exploring the design aspects and including high-interest visual
components such as exploding fireworks and zooming helicopters, B1 and
B2 became more aware of their content needs and increased their
concentration on constructing meaning for their audience.
Table 3 Signs of Engagement in Learning During
Last Two Days of Hypertext Creation
_________________________________________________________________________
F = frequent and recurrent O = occasional
indication I = infrequent or missing
|
Indicators
|
G1
|
G2
|
B1
|
B2
|
|
Attention to task
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Deep Concentration
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Enjoyment
|
O
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Exploration of choices
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Curiosity
|
O
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Loss of sense of time
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Awareness of Audience
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Maintains Focus on Content
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Maintains Focus on Artifact
Design
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Constructing Meaning
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Collaborating
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Self-Monitoring Progress
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
Although G1 maintained a sense of caution and
concern about completing the project at the level of excellence she
wanted, she outwardly relaxed more, laughed more, and demonstrated
visible relief when I agreed to let her and G2 work after school on the
last day to complete their finishing touches. B1 and B2 were heard to
discuss concern with each other when they realized that they had not
answered all of their questions. Their self-monitoring skills increased
after that discussion. Although the two groups varied slightly in the
type and intensity of engaged learning behaviors which I observed, both
teams exhibited active learning with a response to challenge and a
commitment for growth.
The student journals were not as productive as
my direct observation, but several interesting affective responses
emerged. During the research and knowledge assimilation stage of the
PBL unit, both girls wrote fairly extensive responses. Once they began
the hypertext creation, they either lost track of time or lost interest
in journaling. Despite my five minute warning at the end of each class
to save, log off, and journal, the four participants worked on their
computers until the bell, and then rapidly wrote a few responses. I
wondered if electronic journaling would have produced better results.
Both girls expressed a “need to work faster” and a
concern about having enough time to finish their work to their
satisfaction. By the last two days of hypertext creation, G1 wrote,
“This is starting to be fun!” and “Our
website is going to look really good J .” G2 echoed those
feelings in her journals. Another comment which both G1 and G2 made
several times was excitement about what their friends would think about
the web page. Most of the boys’ comments were quite brief:
“Great,” “Good work,”
“Need a flash drive,” and “I think we did
really good today.” B1 commented at the end of the second day
of Dreamweaver use, “I think we should ask you for a
clarification.” The next day he asked me to view his and
B2’s screens and tell them if they were on track or not. This
was the time when I asked them to review their driving questions for
their topic. Widened eyes and an “Oh yeah!”
response resulted. Thus, the journals did not add significant data, but
did confirm G1’s stress reduction and increased confidence
and enjoyment, as well as provide B1 with the opportunity to remember
self-monitoring.
The interview process was quite productive in
terms of data collection. Informal conversations on a daily basis
yielded data which confirmed the observed indicators of engagement in
learning noted in tables 2 and 3. These informal conversations revealed
student excitement, concern, and desire to create excellent web pages
on their topics. Team 1 requested extra assistance with Dreamweaver
use, especially in understanding the use of tables. They also sought
reassurance that they would have the opportunity to complete the
project. I told them that their interest would result in extra time
after school, and their smiles indicated satisfaction. Initially unsure
about using the technology, in the end, they felt that creating their
end product in hypertext was the highlight of the project. The use of
scaffolding supported Team 1’s efforts, and the extra work
time which was provided revealed the team’s persistence and
commitment to their learning project.
The members of Team 2, who were initially
interested primarily in the technology, each stated that learning about
the content, the memorials, was one of the things they enjoyed most
about the project. Both B1 and B2 expressed a lack of pressure and a
feeling that their prior experience with technology created a good
comfort level. Both boys mentioned having had technology projects with
Mr. A last year. My inquiries with both the two boys and with Mr. A
revealed that he routinely gave a number of assignments which
incorporated Word, PowerPoint, and Inspiration. He did not use
hypertext creation with his classes. Neither of the girls had Mr. A in
the 6 th grade. Thus, for these participants, the possibility exists
that comfort with technology increased Team 2’s level of
confidence as they learned new technology skills.
During the exit interview, I asked each of the
participants questions to probe for specific take away impressions of
their learning process. I maintained participant anonymity by asking
all students to answer the questions in writing. I then talked with
small groups to follow up on comments, clarifying the comments of the
participants as I proceeded. Though individual responses varied, all
four participants agreed that they had positive experiences when asked
about enjoyment, concentration, ownership of learning, control,
exploration, and challenge. G1 remarked, “I loved this
project because I learned a lot while having fun!” B1
concurred by saying, “I enjoyed this project a lot because I
love working with computers.” When asked about having a sense
of ownership and control over their work, G1 commented, “I
love being an independent learner, so this was a good project for
me.” Interestingly, all four participants expressed having
moderate initial curiosity about the content of their topics, but great
curiosity about creating their artifacts using Dreamweaver. That
curiosity continued and appeared to motivate the participants to
persist through early stages of the project. All four agreed that they
had been anxious to complete research portion so that they could begin
their web pages.
Each of the four participants agreed that they
had felt increased interest in the project because of the authentic
audience, collaborative learning, and the way they “lost
track of time a bunch” (B2). G2 commented, “I
wanted people to know [G1] and I worked on an amazing web
page,” and B1 observed, “I knew someone would be
watching and if they didn’t think it was good then it would
be terrible!” B2 succinctly stated the collective opinion
about having the entire 7 th grade view the web pages:
“That’s cool!” All four participants also
appreciated the sharing of responsibility and the social negotiation of
joint decision-making inherent in collaborative learning. They
expressed their enjoyment of having a partner for sharing ideas,
problem-solving, and celebrating small victories. B1 noted,
“…it helped us both concentrate on what we were
doing, and it made the project much better.” Typically a
quiet and more solitary worker, G1 remarked, “Yes, I enjoyed
it very much!!!!” Additionally, the participants all felt
that time rushed by in each class. Each day the participants were
startled when I gave the five minute warning, and in the exit interview
they agreed that they had been so deeply involved in their projects
that they had consistently lost track of time. “The classes
seemed to fly by because I was so focused in the project”
(B1). Thus, the students collectively expressed that having an
authentic audience and working collaboratively had promoted their
focus, their enjoyment, and their engagement in the learning tasks,
resulting in the loss of time awareness.
As the PBL unit reached its concluding stage,
the final source for data collection became available: the hypertext
artifacts. I had visited all computer stations several times during
each class to view the students’ progress, and I had noted
their own evaluation of their projects. In the middle of the next to
last class, I instructed each team to save and show their project on
the server and then go to three different projects to offer peer
feedback. Peer feedback sheets were provided at each station to record
comments, praise, and suggestions for improvement (Appendix H). B1 and
B2 had already finished their web page, and they had the opportunity to
revisit their sight to incorporate suggestions at the end of the period
and the next day. Only boys visited B1 and B2’s computer to
view their end product on the server. The six surveyors felt that B1
and B2 had accomplished their goal by using
“well-written” “very
understandable” text and “excellent
images” and “great eye-catcher images” to
produce a “user friendly” web page with an
“excellent explanation.” Suggestions for
improvement included recommendations for text style and color choices.
B1 and B2 were obviously proud of their site and the feedback they
earned from their peers.
The two girls were still working on their page
when the peer feedback time arrived; but they stopped to respond to
other groups, and they later reviewed and addressed comments about
their own website as time allowed. Two groups of boys and one team of
girls viewed G1 and G2’s site. In the margins of one peer
feedback paper, G1 and G2 had noted the information which they had not
yet completed or they wanted to change. The six students felt that G1
and G2 had an excellent opening with “good
pictures” and an introduction that is “simple but
it’s cool.” Four students felt that some of G1 and
G2’s text “sounds a little too grown up”
and “complicated.” Both groups suggested making
sure that they had not copied and pasted text unintentionally. All
three teams reminded G1 and G2 of their unfinished tasks, the
introductory paragraph and the five audience quiz questions, and stated
that G1 and G2 had “explain[ed] a lot about
Washington.” B1 and B2 addressed their changes quickly and
were done in less than five minutes. The girls asked if they could stay
after school the next day to work in the computer lab to finish their
project. I agreed to remain with them so that they could finish. Rather
than throw together a quick ending, G1 and G2 demonstrated commitment
to completing a quality product to their satisfaction.
Both G1 and G2 and B1 and B2 were aware
throughout the PBL unit of the two forms of final evaluation which they
would receive: the response of their audience and their performance
measured by my rubric (Appendix G). First, all sites were collected and
placed on my school website for viewing by the two classes. My students
evaluated their own artifacts using the rubric, and then received my
evaluation of their end products, also using the rubric and
accompanying written comments. Correspondence was high, indicating
appropriate self-evaluation. Both Teams 1 and 2 achieved perfect scores
on their rubrics, as did many of the students. Screen shots of the two
web pages are shown in Appendices K and L.
The students expressed the greatest excitement,
however, about the reactions of their school community. Before viewing
the web pages, the other 7 th grade students told my class that they
were eager to go to the computer labs to view the sites. After they
viewed the artifacts, their feedback and response was enthusiastic. A
number of students from other classes asked me if they could transfer
into the honors class, despite comments from my students about how hard
they had worked. The four participant students each shared in class a
friend’s positive comments and the resultant pride they felt
about their experience.
Because of their excellent explanations of the
founding of our American government and the roles of the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, the artifact which G1 and G2 created
will also be used by all seventh grade teachers to enhance instruction
on the American Revolution and the process which resulted in the
Constitution of the United States.
Conclusions
A single definition and description of engaged
learning remains elusive, yet it has been recorded that the
participants in this study showed evidence of engagement in active
learning, as described in the literature (Chen & McGrath, 2003;
Paris & Ayres, 1994). As the two 7 th grade girls (Team 1) and
two 7 th grade boys (Team 2) created hypertext to display their
constructed knowledge about open ended topics for an authentic
audience, they demonstrated the enjoyment, concentration, perceived
control, exploration, and perceived challenge noted by Chen and McGrath
in their article, “Moments of Joy” (2003).
Team 1 demonstrated their academic curiosity
early in the selection of their topic. When their research proved to be
quite complex and their curiosity diminished as their frustration grew.
Both girls commented that they felt theirs was the most difficult topic
to research. “This is really hard, Mrs. Dean!” was
the comment from G1, as G2 expressed, “This isn’t
fair; we’re working harder than anyone else and finding
almost nothing on our topic!” They nonetheless deepened their
involvement and commitment, as shown by their requested private meeting
with the media specialist for further guidance in research techniques.
They maintained their focus on their content, despite an increase in
perceived difficulty and challenge. As they absorbed the information
and created their own knowledge, they moved from initial uncertainty
about the web authoring software to excitement in artifact creation. As
they amassed and organized information and finally became deeply
involved in their artifact creation, both agreed that “This
is getting fun now.” Throughout the process, they
demonstrated engagement in learning through deep involvement, a desire
to impress their audience, and a desire to create a quality end
product.
Team 2 also demonstrated signs of engagement in
learning, but their learning journey was different. Initially more at
ease with the technology, they explored the Internet and the
Dreamweaver functions with greater enthusiasm than Team 1. They showed
an almost casual confidence in their ability to learn new technology,
and they maintained sharp focus on their artifact design even before
they had gathered their information and digested it. They gradually
became aware of the need to increase the merit of their content. They
realized that animations of fireworks and helicopters alone would not
address the questions the audience needed answered. When asked what
would provide the most meaningful information for their audience, B1
answered, “Our pictures and our
information….Oooooh….We don’t have too
much information. But I really like the helicopters and the fireworks.
We can keep them, right? OK. I get it.” Just as Team 1 moved
from a focus exclusively on content to a view of hypertext creation
being an exciting way to deliver information, Team 2 moved from
preoccupation with the technology to an awareness that display without
sufficient content is inadequate. Both groups noted a lack of awareness
of the passage of time due to their deep concentration and involvement
with their tasks. In the end, both teams ended with balanced artifacts
which utilized hypertext to showcase solid content for a real audience.
Both teams also demonstrated behaviors of Paris
and Ayres’ self-regulated learners (1994). The participants
chose their topics and created their goals. They were all active
learners who sought rewarding experiences as they directed their own
learning. Collaborating as they worked, they constructed new meaning
and were responsible for their process and their results. Though Team 1
expressed more stress in dealing with a complex topic, they stated that
they worked toward the reward of praise from their peers, as well as
the satisfaction of personal accomplishment. Team 2 was more deliberate
in their use of various strategies to accomplish their goals, but both
groups created excellent end products as they engaged in the learning
tasks. Throughout the Washington PBL unit, the participants
demonstrated numerous signs of engagement in learning as they created
their artifacts using hypertext, among them: enjoyment, concentration,
control, exploration, perceived challenge, curiosity, use of
imagination, exertion of effort for an authentic audience, involvement,
loss of a sense of time, focus, high interest, and collaborative
effort.
In addition to the achievements of the student
participants, the response of the 7 th grade American history teachers
was worthy of notice. A three year teacher declined using the website
with his students and provided no reason or comment. Another, a veteran
teacher and coach who has restricted technology use to showing videos
in his class, commented that he was amazed the students could do such a
good job. He further noted that he used my students’ web
pages instead of having his students search the Internet for
information, saying that it used limited time better for his class. A
two year teacher who is currently earning her masters degree in
education said, “Hey, we could almost use this for the whole
unit next year!” Her students spent a class period viewing
the web pages, also. Although the positive response of two of the three
teachers was based on their use of the artifacts and not on the level
of engagement that students demonstrated during creation, they viewed
the technology use positively and they were impressed by the academic
level the students were able to attain in their artifacts. My students
felt the reward of their audience’s appreciation, and they
expressed the desire to have another hypertext project.
My principal focused more on the potential
learning benefits of PBL with hypertext artifact creation. In an email
to me after she had viewed the students’ web pages, she
wrote,
It’s always exciting to see teachers
speaking in the native language of our students – digital!
From an administrative standpoint, the unit generated excitement among
the students as well as with the other social studies teachers. It was
exciting to watch the students take a unit we have done for years
– teacher centered I might add – and make it their
own. They were able predict and plan for something that was relevant to
them. With the added tech bonus, the students had fun while learning!
Thus, my principal noted some of the factors
which promote engagement in learning: excitement, ownership,
application of skills, relevance, and fun. In a conversation, she
stated that she was impressed with the students’ expression
of their learning, and she indicated that with a few content additions
and the consensus of the other 7 th grade American history teachers, in
the future the web page collection and the scavenger hunt might replace
the printed paper notebooks which 7 th grade students at the school
have studied in excess of the last twenty years. She also asked faculty
to view the web pages, and asked department chairs to encourage
technology integration with their teachers.
Such response from students, faculty, and
administration may encourage the use of student hypertext authoring as
a means of creating and sharing PBL artifacts, yet the focus should
remain on worthy and engaged learning. Many questions remain. As Chen
and McGrath (2003) noted in their study, the participants demonstrated
engaged learning by sustaining focus on content, clarity, and design;
yet varying amounts of scaffolding were required at different points to
support the students in their learning efforts and to sustain
engagement. This, however, is often expected in the middle grades as
students develop at uneven rates. Further research to study the types
of scaffolding required by different learners at different levels is
needed. The participants responded to the creation of hypertext
artifacts with the active and engaged participation which Paris and
Ayers (1994) describe. The four 7 th graders demonstrated a positive
and engaged learning experience as they responded to challenge and
choice and as they collaboratively generated the web pages. The
participants exhibited focused and worthwhile concentration with a
purpose. How much of this engagement in learning, however, might be
duplicated in other learning contexts and with different participants?
Several important points for consideration
emerged during this project. First, in developing PBL units which
incorporate hypertext creation, it is important for teachers to know
the developmental level of their learners and to understand how the
students’ skill levels and cognitive strengths and needs will
impact the PBL implementation. The cognitive demands of the task and
the complexity of the content appear to be greater influences in PBL
success than the technology which is chosen. Furthermore, scaffolding
may be the instructional ingredient which allows students to exceed
their presumed ability levels and engage positively in web page
authoring. Although Chen and McGrath (2003) felt that hypertext
creation provided an acceptable learning experience for high school
students, they suggested that middle grade students would be
overwhelmed. At the heart of their observation, however, is the use of
hypertext as a means of showing the hierarchical nature and
relationships of concepts through links from primary to subordinate
pages. When the focus of a PBL unit is inquiry to answer an overarching
question and to showcase the artifacts on a web page for an authentic
audience, hypertext creation may indeed be appropriate for middle
graders. More important than the type of technology for displaying the
end product is the process which leads to that product. Thus, when
student choice is honored in the selection of topics and teammates,
when students perceive a suitable developmental level of challenge, and
when scaffolding is provided at an appropriate level, there is greater
likelihood of success in creating hypertext PBL artifacts.
Liu (2003) and Liu and Hsiao (2002) noted that
the difficulty which middle grade students exhibit in hypertext
creation centers primarily in management of time, resources, and
effort. They also noted that the learners’ competencies
increased over time, with one semester being the average for achieving
adequate personal management levels. Many middle grade teachers,
however, are reluctant to devote a semester to increasing student
skills in management and hypertext creation. The demands to meet
curricular standards and to prepare learners for the next year of study
guide most teachers in their allocation of instructional time. Although
the results of this study are limited to this group and PBL unit and
may not be generalized to other situations, the questions are again
raised. Will guidance in topic definition, advanced preparation of the
students, and provision of necessary scaffolding enable middle grade
students to succeed in project-based learning as they create hypertext
artifacts? The experience of the four selected participants in this
study suggested that adequate teacher guidance and scaffolding could
assist students in achieving active, even robust engagement in
learning. Whether the reminder for heighten personal management was a
verbal cue or a daily task management log, the participants
self-monitored their time, effort, and knowledge construction. The
resulting sense of ownership appeared to correlate with the level of
positive engagement in learning during hypertext creation, and
throughout the project.
Adequate preparation for student creation of
hypertext facilitates performance. Allowing learners the opportunity to
use various forms of technology on a regular basis appears to build
confidence in using computers for academics. As Ghani and Deshpande
previously noted in their study of challenge, voluntary exploration,
perceived control, intrinsic motivation, and engagement in learning
(1994), Team 2’s performance and comments suggested that
increased experience leads to increased comfort using technology, which
leads to increased willingness to try new applications and increased
willingness to explore. Team 1, however, though less experienced and
initially less comfortable with the technology, caught up to Team
2’s level of exploration and skill using Dreamweaver by the
end of the unit. Once they understood the basic operations of the web
authoring software, they began exploring options and quickly built
their comfort level.
Adequate preparation also includes the time to
for students to explore on the computer. By allowing prior exploration
in a given area of technology, teachers may reduce the play behavior of
some students during instruction while addressing the needs of others
in order to minimize frustration during application. In the case of
Dreamweaver use, the participants found the basic functions easy to
learn. All four remarked that once they learned how the features were
activated, the program just made sense to them. Team 1 required more
practice, but they learned the process without difficulty when they
learned using their own material to create their own design to meet
their own authentic need.
The value of project-based learning in the
middle grades is based on authentic learning about real life issues. By
making choices and controlling their efforts, the learners become self
driven as they create their answers to open ended questions for an
authentic audience. In the 21 st century classroom, there is an option
for making such a learning opportunity even more exciting and for
promoting positive student engagement in learning: creating that end
product in hypertext.
References
Beyer, B. (1991). Teaching thinking
skills: A handbook for elementary school teachers, Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Blumenfeld,
P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., &
Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the
doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4),
369-398.
Carver, S., Lehrer, R., Connell, T., &
Erickson, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: Issues of
assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist,
27(3), 385-404.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.
(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.
New York: Harper & Row.
Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2003). Moments
of joy: Student engagement and conceptual learning in the design of
hypermedia documents. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 35(3), 402-422.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design:
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erickson, J. & Lehrer, R. (2000).
What’s in a link? Student conceptions of the rhetoric
association in hypermedia composition. In S. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers
as cognitive tools: Vol II: No more walls (pp.
197-226). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognitive aspects of
problem solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of
intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ghani, J. & Deshpande, S. (1994). Task
characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human computer
interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4),
381-391.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction.
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Heller, R. (1990). The role of hypermedia in
education: A look at the research issues. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 22(4), 431-441.
International Society for Technology in
Education, National Educational Technology Standards.
(n.d.) Retrieved March 10, 2006, from
http://www.iste.org/template.cfm?Section=NETS
Jonassen, D., Myers, J., & McKillop, A.
(1996). From constructivism to constructionism: Learning with
hypermedia/multimedia rather than from it. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist
learning environments: Case studies in instructional design
(pp. 93-106). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R.,
& Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle
grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary
School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.
Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, R.
(1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents, Computers
in the Schools, 10(1/2), 227-254.
Liu, M. (1998). The effect of hypermedia
authoring on elementary school students’ creative thinking
skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(1),
27-51.
Liu, M. (2003). Enhancing learners’
cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive
Learning
Environments, 11(1), 23-39.
Liu, M.
& Hsiao, Y. (2002). Middle school students as multimedia
designers: A project-based
learning
approach. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4),
311-337.
Liu, M. & Pedersen, S. (1998).
Hypermedia design and elementary school students. Journal of
Interactive
Learning Research, 9(2), 155-182.
Liu, M. & Rutledge, K. (1997). The
effect of a “learner as multimedia designer”
environment on at-risk high school students’
motivation and learning of design knowledge. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 16(2), 145-177.
McGrath, D. (2002). Getting started with
project-based learning. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 30(3), 42-45.
McGrath, D. (2003). Designing to learn: A focus
on design in project-based learning. Learning &
Leading with Technology, 30(6), 50-53.
McGrath, D., Cumaranatunge, C., Ji, M., Chen,
H., Broce, W., & Wright, K. (1997). Multimedia science
projects: Seven case studies. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 30(1), 18-37.
Meece, J. (2003). Applying learner-centered
principles to middle school education. Theory
into Practice, 42(2), 109-116.
Meece, J., Herman, P., & McCombs, B.
(2003). Relations of learner-centered teaching practices to
adolescents’ achievement goals. International
Journal of Educational Research, 39, 457-475.
Newell, R. (2003). Passion for
learning. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Newstetter, W. (2000). Guest Editor’s
Introduction, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3),
243-246.
Paris, S. & Ayres, L. (1994). Becoming
reflective students and teachers with portfolios and authentic
assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Penuel, B., Korbak, C., Yarnall, L., &
Pacpaco, O. (2001). Silicon Valley
Challenge 2000: Year 5 multimedia project report. Retrieved
March 10, 2006, from
http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/sri/ReportsPDFFiles/MMPY5rpt.pdf Files/MMPY5rpt.pdf
m.k12.ca.us/sri/ReportsPDFFiles/MMPY5rpt.pdf
Perkins, D. (1986). Knowledge as
design. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perkins, D. (1991). What constructivism demands
of the learner. Educational Technology, 31(9), 19-21.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart
schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New
York: Free Press.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson,
T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with
intelligent technologies, Educational Researcher, 20(3),
2-9.
Scheidler, K, (1993). Students cross discipline
boundaries with hypermedia. The Computing Teacher, 20(5),
16-20.
Spoehr, K. (1993, June). Profiles of
hypermedia authors: How students learn by doing. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case
study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woolfolk, A.E. (1987). Educational
Psychology (3rd Ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Appendix A:
Topics (Size Adjusted)
Hah—Washington
Website Topics
Select and sign up for a
topic on Mrs. Dean’s master list.
________________ Trip information (rules,
expectations, advice, schedule to be provided)
________________ Sights: Military
Monuments—(Including military history that is remembered, as
well as information about the monument) WWII, Marine Memorial (Iwo
Jima), Korean, Vietnam (include The Three Soldiers)
________________ Sights: Presidential
Monuments—Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln,
Roosevelt (Why were they chosen? What was important
about them?)
________________ Sights: Smithsonian
Museums—including the Natural History, American History, Air
and Space, Castle
________________ Sights: Important Presidential
Sites (Include important historical information) Ford Theater (inside,
outside, balcony), Peterson House, Mount Vernon, Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
________________ Sights: Arlington National
Cemetery (Include relevant histories) — Lee mansion,
JFK’s Eternal Flame and grave, Tomb of the Unknowns,
Wreath Laying Ceremony; the Pentagon
________________ Sights: The Heart of
Washington, DC: The Mall, the White House, The Capitol (including
Statuary Hall, the Rotunda, the Senate and House of
Representatives, Liberty), Pennsylvania Avenue
________________ Sights: More National Sites:
The Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the
National Archives, the National Cathedral
________________Sights: Other Important
Buildings: FBI Building, House and Senate Office Buildings,
the Treasury Department, the Watergate Hotel
________________ History: Why was Washington, DC
chosen? Choice of Washington as a location for the capital
city and center of government, early decisions, role in US history,
major events in the city’s history
________________ Government: What kind of
government do we have? How was it made? Why were
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
written? Why are they important?
________________ Government: The three branches
(Executive, Legislative, Judicial), their roles, and checks and
balances
________________ Government: Who serves in the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches? (Qualifications, duties,
length/conditions of service)
Appendix
B: Instructions for Storage, Resource Page, and Initial Dreamweaver
Instructions
HAH-Washington
Project
Tasks:
- Listen carefully and follow all directions
as Mrs. Dean gives them.
- Login to personal accounts, set new
passwords, give copy of password to Mrs. Dean.
- Set up Resource File for storage of URLs and
notes.
- Open and define Dreamweaver site.
Login to personal accounts, set new passwords,
give copy of password to Mrs. Dean.
1. On the login screen, enter the information on
our info sheet.
2. Follow the directions on the sheet to create your new password.
3. Carefully copy your password on your info sheet and on the copy for
Mrs. Dean. Make sure both are accurate.
4. Raise your hand for Mrs. Dean to come receive your info sheet copy.
Set up Resource File for storage of URLs and
notes.
- Sign on in your electronic storage area.
- Open a word file and title it
“Resources.”
- Click “File,”
“Save As,” make sure the drop down window shows
storage in your account, not on the computer desktop.
- Name the file
“Resources” and hit “Save.”
From now on, to save work in this file to your account, you will only
have to hit “Save.”
- Minimize the window so that you will have
easy access to the file as you research.
Open and Define Dreamweaver site.
- Login to your account.
- Locate and open Macromedia Dreamweaver with
a double click in the icon that looks like a green circle with a navy
blue “d.”
- On the new site screen, click once on
“Manage Site” in the upper right.
- Click “New.”
- Click “Site.”
- One the Site Wizard page, click
“Basic” in the upper left.
- Re-title “Unnamed” to
“washingtonyournumber .” Mrs. Dean will give you
the number to use in the blank. Use only this number; Mrs. Dean will
use it to identify your site when she collects all of the web pages.
Use all lower case and no spaces.
- Click “Next.”
- Click “No” for server
technology.
- Click “Next.”
- At the top, click “Edit local site
on my machine.”
- Click the drop down menu beside the file
folder icon.
- Use the pull down menu to select the H drive
[your login on ‘topper\users’ (H:)]
- On the top right, click on the
“Create New Folder” icon (folder with starburst).
- Locate and click in [new folder], type the
name of your site (washingtonyournumber).
- Click off the name rectangle to save the
name.
- Click on the folder, and open the folder.
- Click “Select.”
- It will show (H:\\washingtondyournumber\)
- Click “Next.”
- Under “How to Connect, click the
pull down tab and select “None.”
- Click Next.”
- Click “Done.”
- Click “Done.”
- Dreamweaver will show the folder name in the
“Manage Sites” box.
- Click “Show.”
- Click “Folder.”
- Click name of your site.
Create Dreamweaver Image Folder
- Right click on “Site
Folder.”
- Select “New Folder” and
left click.
- Type “images” in the
title box for the folder.
- Left click outside the box to save the name.
Save a Picture in the Dreamweaver Image Folder
- Locate a picture on the Internet or from a
file and right click on the picture.
- Click “Save Picture.”
- To save, use the pull down tab to select
H-drive and double click on your “washington__”
folder.
- Double click on the
“Images” folder.
- Click “Save.”
- DO NOT USE COPY AND PASTE TO PLACE PICTURES
IN DREAMWEAVER. THEY WILL NOT SHOW ONLINE.
To Double Check the Credibility of a Site and
See Who Has Linked to It
- Copy the URL into the Google Search box by
typing “link://URL”
- You will find a listing of the kinds of
sites that are linked to the site in question.
- If educational or governmental sites are
linked to the site in question, it is more credible.
- If .coms (such as eBay or Amazon) are linked
to the site, avoid it.
- In general, use advanced search and limit
your results to .gov and .edu sites.
- There may be a few .org sites that will
help, but be careful of bias.
- Avoid .com sites for this project.
Appendix C:
Student Journal (Size Adjusted)
HAH— Washington
DC Project—Personal Journal
Name and
number_________________________________ Date___________
Goals for the class period:
What my group did:
What I did:
My Thoughts:
Plans for next time:
Appendix D:
Student Daily Self Evaluation (Size Adjusted)
HAH—Daily
Self Evaluation for the Washington Web Site Project
Name and number: ___________________________
Date ________________
Teammate:
______________________________________________________
Tasks :
Monday
_________________________________________________________
Tuesday
_________________________________________________________
Thursday
________________________________________________________
Friday
___________________________________________________________
Time on task:
Mon _____/10, Tue _____/10, block day _____/20,
Fri _____/10.
Total for the week: _____/50 points
Quality of work accomplished :
Mon _____/10, Tue _____/10, block day _____/20,
Fri _____/10.
Total for the week: _____/50 points
Collaborative effort, respect for ideas of
others, contribution to group effort.
Mon _____/10, Tue _____/10, block day _____/20,
Fri _____/10.
Total for the week: _____/50 points
Student Comments:
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Mrs. Dean’s Comments:
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Appendix E:
Observation Form/Field Notes (Size Adjusted)
Date_______________________ Student #__________
Class Period _____________
|
Task/Activity
|
Observation
|
Reflection
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix F:
Referral Notes to Support Independent Dreamweaver Usage (Size Adjusted)
HAH— Washington
Project—Dreamweaver Reminders
Never panic if you do
something you don’t like! Click Control
“Z” to go back a step. You can also Edit-Undo in
most cases.
To see how your web page will look when
it’s published, click F12 at the top of the keyboard. You
cannot change anything on the page that opens, but you can see how your
work will look on the Internet.
To Save a Picture in the
Dreamweaver Image Folder
1. Locate a picture on the Internet or from a
file and right click on the picture. Make sure it is in a jpeg
or gif format. Be sure it is not copyright protected. Be sure
you have the source. Select it.
2. Right click, then “Save
Picture.”
3. To save, use the pull down tab to select
your H-drive storage and double click on your
“washingtonyournumber” folder.
4. Double click on the
“images” folder.
5. Rename the title of the image if necessary.
6. Click “Save.”
7. DO NOT USE COPY AND PASTE TO PLACE PICTURES
IN DREAMWEAVER. THEY WILL NOT SHOW CORRECTLY ONLINE.
To Set Your Page Properties on Dreamweaver
1. Click on the “Page
Properties” button at the bottom of the page in
the properties pane.
2. Use the “Appearance”
view listed in the top of the menu to the left.
3. Set the font style and size, choices about
bold or italics, background.
4. Click “OK” if you are
just beginning, and “Apply” if you’ve
started and wish to change what you had.
To Make a Table for Inserting Images and Text
1. First, design your table. Decide which images
and text you want to go where in the table. Think about being
attractive and
reader- friendly!
2. Click the icon at the top that looks like a
table or window with 6 panes.
3. Set the number of columns and rows you want
in the Table dialog box.
4. Place your cursor on a line of the table so
that a double line appears. Then drag the edge to enlarge
(or shrink) the table row and column sizes.
5. As you place images in the table, it will
expand to accommodate the image. It will also expand to fit
your text. Resize the picture and click outside the cell
to resize the table cells. Work with your text size and
placement in the cells to get the size table and cells you want.
To Merge Two Cells in a Table
1. Click in the first cell you wish to combine
with another. Hold down the control key and click the two cells you
wish to combine.
2. You should see additional lines around the
two selected cells—white or red against darker backgrounds,
and dark against lighter backgrounds.
3. In the lower left corner under the word
“Cell,” click the icon that shows a box with a
dotted line down the middle. Your two cells will merge (combine) into
one bigger cell.
To Split One Cell into Two Cells in a Table
1. Click in the cell you wish to split.
2. You should see additional lines around the
selected cell—white or red against darker backgrounds, and
dark against lighter backgrounds.
3. A window will ask if you want to split into
columns or rows, and it will ask how many. Make your selection.
4. Click “OK” and the cell
will split accordingly.
To Make a Hyperlink to an Outside Website
1. First, copy the URL you want to link to.
2. Next, in Dreamweaver, decide what color you
want the link text to be.
3. Click the Page Properties button at the
bottom of the Dreamweaver screen.
4. In the Category menu on the left, select
“Link.”
5. Set the Link font, size, and color. You
might want to have a visited link turn a darker or lighter color, but
be careful about getting too wild. You want your links to
inform your reader, not distract. You may have your links underlined or
not by using the pull down arrow to make that choice. Click
“OK.”
6. Highlight the word or words in your text
that you want to make a link to a web page on the Internet.
7. Type or paste the URL of the site into the
text box just to the right of the word “Link” at
the bottom in the Properties pane.
8. We apparently have two versions of
Dreamweaver MX 2004!?! I was informed that some computers
have a newer version, but the title of the program at
the top of your screen still says MX 2004. I’m
sorry, but you will have to see which of the following instructions
work for you.
If you have the first kind, place your cursor
on the circle with the crosshairs (point to file) to the right
of the box where you just placed the URL. Left
click and hold as you drag from the circle to the
word in the text that you wish to be your link. Release when
you have the line on the highlighted link word or words.
If your computer has the other version of
Dreamweaver, simply click on an empty place on your page after you have
highlighted the link word or words and dropped the URL into the link
box.
9. Your link word/words should now be
underlined. Save.
10. Click F12 to preview your web page on the
server.
11. Click on your link, and it should take you
to the web page on the Internet.
To Organize a Long Page by using Named Anchors
1. To allow your reader to link from a menu word
or title at the top of your Dreamweaver page to a section of
text further down the page without having to scroll, you
will create a link (top) to a named anchor (text further down
the page).
2. Write the text, or anchor, down toward the
bottom of the page.
3. Place the cursor where the named anchor will
be located. This is the area of the page where the user will jump to
when he or she clicks the link at the top.
4. Select Insert and then Named Anchor (half
way down the list)
5. In the Named Anchor dialog box, name the
anchor (the link word at the top) and then click OK.
6. Highlight the link work at the top of the
page.
7. Place the cursor on the link circle icon
(point to file) in the Page Properties pane, and drag the link
line to the shield with the anchor on it where you placed your
anchor.
8. Save.
9. Click F12 to see your web page. Click the
new link, and the page should jump to the named anchor
section.
10. To allow your audience to “Return
to top,” do the same series of actions, but this time place
the link at the bottom and the anchor at the top.
Appendix G:
Rubric (Original is in landscape format and is contained on one page
with narrow margins. Criteria are listed, instead of shown by number.)
Honors American History
Rubric for Washington, DC Project
1=Appearance, 2=Content,
3=Writing Quality, 4=Digital Savvy, 5= Resources, 6= Overall impact and
answer, 7= Individual contribution to team effort (from teacher and
team rating Double points)
|
|
Fantastic! 5 pts
|
Really good! 4 pts
|
Good job. 3 pts
|
Needs work! 2 pts
|
Uh-Oh! 1 pt
|
|
1
|
Creative use
of design, font, images, and colors. Visual elements reveal
the topic and mood of the site, and are readerfriendly.
WOW!
|
Creative use of design, font, images, and
colors. Visual elements relate to the topic and mood of the site, and
are reader friendly. Very good!
|
Good use of design, font, and colors.
Visual elements relate to the topic and mood of the site, and are
reader friendly. Lacks sparkle.
|
Design, font, or color minimally support
the topic and mood of the site. The reader gets information easily.
|
Design, font, and color not used to
support the topic and mood of the site. The reader must work hard to
get information.
|
|
2
|
All info is accurate
and answers the question superbly. No
unrelated info included. Intro, body, resources, pics, 5 review
questions.
|
All info is accurate and answers the
question well. No unrelated info included. Intro, body, resources,
pics, 5 review questions.
|
All info is accurate and addresses the
question. No unrelated info. Intro, body, resources, pics, 5 review
questions.
|
There is one minor inaccuracy or there is
some off-topic information. Intro or questions are missing. Has intro,
resources.
|
The page has 2 or more inaccuracies or
there is substantial information that is off-topic. Two items are
missing: intro, body, resources, 5 ?s.
|
|
3
|
Writing is clean
of major grammar errors and has no more than 3 minor mechanical errors.
Sentences are well formed with vivid vocab.
No fragments or run-ons. Spell binding.
|
Writing is clean of major grammar errors
and has no more than 8 minor mechanical errors. Sentences are well
formed. No fragments or run-ons. Writing sustains reader interest.
|
Writing has 1-2 major grammar errors or
has no more than 10 minor mechanical errors. Sentences are mostly
simple and lack variety. Only one fragment or run-on. Lacks interest.
|
Writing has 3 major grammar errors or has
no more than 10 minor mechanical errors. Sentence quality suffers.
Reader must work hard to keep interest. Only one fragment or run-on.
|
Writing has major problems that keep the
reader from being able to read for understanding. More than 2 fragments
or run-ons.
|
|
4
|
Website is correctlyconstructed
in Dream-weaver and has at least 5 hyperlinks/ anchors
and 8 pics. All links work.
The images and text are cited.
|
Website is correctly constructed in
Dream-weaver and has at least 4 anchors links and 6 pictures. All links
work. The images and text are cited and linked.
|
Website is correctly constructed in
Dream-weaver and has at least 2 anchors/links and 4 pictures. All links
work.
|
Website requires reorganization by
teacher because group did not follow directions. Group requests help.
Or, there are no pictures or links.
|
Instructions for creating the page in
Dream-weaver were not followed. The group did not attempt to correct
the project to follow directions.
|
|
5
|
At least 8resources
are cited.
|
At least 5 resources are cited
|
At least 4 resources are cited.
|
At least 3 resources are cited.
|
Fewer than 3 resources are cited.
|
|
6
|
Completely answers
the essential question: Why should students learn about my topic for
Washington, DC? Contributes to the overarching question: Why should
Americans visit Washington?
|
Answers the essential question: Why
should students learn about my topic for Washington, DC? Pretty good
text and visuals. Contributes to the overarching question.
|
Minimally answers the essential question:
Why should students learn about my topic for Washington, DC? Reader has
to work too hard.
|
Partially answers the essential question:
Why should students learn about my topic for Washington, DC? Something
is missing.
|
Fails to answer the essential question:
Why should students learn about my topic for Washington, DC?
Explanation is insufficient.
|
|
7
|
Demonstrated focused
attention, solid work effort, and substantial contribution
to the team’s project 10 pts
|
Demonstrated off task behavior a few
times, but worked hard (over 50% or 33%) to make the team’s
project great. 8 pts
|
Demonstrated off task behavior many
times, but contributed fair share of the work. (50% for group of 2, 33%
group of 3) 6 pts
|
Had to be redirected to the task
frequently, contributed less than the fair share (50% or 33%) 3 or 4
pts
|
Contributed little to the
team’s efforts and end product. Required excessive teacher
redirection. 1 or 2 pts
|
Appendix H:
Peer Feedback Form (Size adjusted)
HAH— Washington Web Page Peer Feedback
from ________________________________
Topic: ___________________________ Team
Authors: ____________________________
Give your friends constructive feedback about
their web page. Be sure to address the following points.
|
Area of the web page being addressed:
|
This is what I really like about this
area.
|
This is what I wish you might do to make
this area even better.
|
|
The introduction has a clear title and
menu, is attractive and attention getting, and sets the tone for the
topic.
|
|
|
|
The introductory paragraph explains how
the topic will help the audience learn about and appreciate
Washington , DC .
|
|
|
|
All text is well written, informative,
interesting, and appropriate for the 7 th grade audience. The audience
is better able to understand the topic because of the content of the
text.
|
|
|
|
The text is clearly the writing of the
team and gives no sign of copy-paste plagiarism.
|
|
|
|
The images add interest and meaning to
the page. The audience is better able to understand the topic because
of the content of the images.
|
|
|
|
All images have sources noted.
|
|
|
|
All hyperlinks and internal anchors work.
|
|
|
|
The artistic and design decisions make
the page user-friendly and appealing.
|
|
|
|
The web page accomplishes the goal of
explaining why the audience should want to learn about and visit
Washington, DC.
|
|
|
Peer Feedback, Continued on back of page in the
original:
Suggestions for revision:
Suggestions for editing:
Appendix I:
Self and Teammate Evaluation (Size Adjusted)
Washington
, DC Project: Team and Self Evaluation
Look at your
project as you evaluate your work and the work of your team members. If
you worked with one person, there will be a line that you do not use.
My name ________________________________________
Teammate #1 ____________________________________
Teammate #2 ____________________________________
1.
Look at the appearance of your web page. Does it reflect the feel of
Washington, DC and your topic? Is it creative, colorful, and reader
friendly?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
2.
Consider the content of your web page.
A. Is the information accurate?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
B. Is your site free of plagiarism and
“clone sentences”; is it all in your own words and
does it show your
thinking
about your topic?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
C. Does the content answer your guiding question
clearly? Can the reader understand your writing easily?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
D. Did you include 1) the introductory paragraph
telling the audience why your topic is worthy of their attention and 2)
at
least 5 review questions for your audience?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
E. Is your content free of unnecessary or
inappropriate content or visuals?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
F. Did you observe all copyright guidelines?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
3. Consider the grammar and
mechanics of your site.
A. Is your writing clean of major grammatical
and mechanical errors?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
B. Is your writing free of run-ons and
fragments?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
4. Consider the technical
correctness of your site. (Did you follow technical directions?)
A. Is your page constructed correctly in
Dreamweaver with only one page?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
B. Does your site have at least 7 internal
anchors or hyperlinks that work?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
C. Does your site have at least eight pictures?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
E. Did you include image sources so that your
reader can identify the site from which the picture came?
Not really ____ Kind of ____ Solid yes ____
Absolutely! ____
F. How many resources have you listed?
2-3 ____ 4-5 ____ 6-7 ____ More than 7 ____
5. Consider the overall impact of
your site.
ZZZZ ____ OK ____ Pretty good ____ WOW! ____
Now think about the work that you and your teammate(s) did.
Finding
Research:
I did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a lot
____
T #1 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
T #2 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
Finding images:
I did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a lot
____
T #1 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
T #2 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
Writing:
I did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a lot
____
T #1 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
T #2 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
Design
of the site:
I did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a lot
____
T #1 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
T #2 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
Revising
and Editing:
I did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a lot
____
T #1 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
T #2 did not much ____ some ____ much ____ a
lot ____
What I would do to make our
project better next time:
Appendix J: Probe Questions for Final Interview
Did
you enjoy this project? Please explain.
Did you concentrate a lot while working? Did
you have to concentrate to do your job well?
Did you enjoy having a sense of freedom,
ownership, and control, over your work?
Did you feel like you had control over your
decisions and what you did?
Did you feel like you could explore as much as
you wanted to?
How much challenge did you feel with this
assignment?
Was the level of challenge about right for you?
Were you curious about your topic?
Were you curious about creating your web page
with Dreamweaver?
What captured your imagination the most about
this project?
Did having a real audience who will look at
your web page next week cause you to work differently? Please explain.
How do you feel about the entire seventh grade
viewing your web page next week?
How involved were you with your project?
Did you ever lose track of time? Did class time
seem to drag on, fly by, or feel normal?
Was it hard to stay focused on your work?
What was the most interesting part of this
project for you?
Did you use any strategies to help you
research, select your images, create your content, or design the web
page?
Did you ever feel like you were taking any
risks? How did you feel about it, if you did?
Did you enjoy working with a friend to research
and create your web page?
Did you monitor your progress, areas you needed
to improve, and successes?
How would you rate this project?
What have you learned from this project?
Appendix K:
Team 1 Screen Shots
A Content Header (mdean1.jpg)
Team 1 felt that a study of Washington, DC
should include a section about the development of the American system
of government since Washington is the only national capital in the
world built exclusively as a seat of government. They initially thought
they would describe a representative democracy, tell about Washington
as the site of government activities, and review “a little
history” (G1). The participants had not yet studied the
American Revolution and the subsequent years leading to the
Constitution. As they researched, they realized how big their topic
was, and they became quite anxious. They never gave up on their chosen
topic, however, and their web page includes the pursuit of human rights
set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of
Confederation, Shays Rebellion, the Constitutional Convention, major
provisions of the Constitution, and the development of a
people’s government.
An Anchored Portion with Active Hyperlink to an
External Website (mdean2.jpg)
Team 1 undoubtedly worked longer and harder
than any other group on their research and their content. They
collaboratively worked to understand a mass of information, condense
it, and construct new knowledge which they could share with their
audience on a single web page viewable in five to ten minutes. Their
sustained focus, concentration on their task, loss of sense of time,
and response to the challenge they faced testifies to the high level of
engagement in learning they achieved. When they began the hypertext
design portion of the unit, they were hesitant at first in exploring
and applying the Dreamweaver features to their project. They quickly
grew in confidence and became quite absorbed in selecting features and
creating their layout. Their excitement over their artifact at the
conclusion showed that they considered their experienced to be quite
rewarding and worth the effort.
Appendix L:
Team 2 Screen Shots
Introduction to Korean War Memorial Section
(mdean3.jpg)
Team 2 began their project with substantial
time and attention on technical aspects and limited focus on content,
answering driving questions, and creating new knowledge. Their comments
and lively gestures showed their enjoyment of exploring both the
Internet and the features of Dreamweaver, and they appeared often to be
driven by technical curiosity. They were the first group to apply
tables in their web page construction and to inquire about image
manipulation in Macromedia Fireworks. They were the only group to
actually alter an image in Fireworks without further assistance after I
demonstrated the procedure.
Active Hyperlink to a Virtual Tour of the
Vietnam War Memorial on the Internet (mdean4.jpg)
B1 was consistently intrigued with learning
about the monuments and the history they represented, but he was
equally involved with the technology. B2 was initially competent but
casual about including information and much more involved with locating
and including animation on the web page. The opening section includes
numerous starburst fireworks exploding, and the Vietnam Wall section
includes helicopters which zoom across the web page. These features are
not included in the screen shots because they did not show well when
still. The team searched the Internet for virtual tours which could be
hyperlinked for audience edification. After demonstrating engagement
through their enjoyment, curiosity, desire to explore, and involvement
with technology, the team refocused their efforts on improving their
content and answering their key questions. Initially showing more
engagement in learning about and using the technology, Team 2 ended the
unit by exhibiting engagement in learning as they focused on content
development and concentrated on meaningful topic presentation for their
audience.
