implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio ... · implementing project-based learning and...

ImplementingProject-BasedLearningAndE-PortfolioAssessmentInanUndergraduateCourse

YaseminGülbaharandHasanTinmazBaskent University, Turkey

AbstractIn this case study, the aim was to implement project-based learning by utilizing e-portfolio assessment in a small-scale classroom (N = 8). The compulsory Design, Development, and Evaluation of Educational Software course in the curriculum of the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology was selected due to its strong relationship with real life while lending itself to addressing the major concern of project-based learning. Despite insufficient classroom size and students’ challenges on animation software, it was found that project-based learning was an appropriate choice for conducting such a course. Moreover, e-portfolio assessment proved to be valuable in project-based learning. In the rest of the pa-per, findings from other research studies evaluating project-based learning are discussed and recommendations are presented. (Keywords: project based learning, e-portfolio assessment, educational software development.)

INTRODUCTIONManyeducatorsstruggletodiscoverproperteachingandassessmentstrategies

fortheirstudents.Alargenumberofresearchstudiesareconductedandvariousteachingandlearningstrategiesareproposedtoanswerthequestion,“Howcanweteachmoreeffectively?”Thisprocessstartedwiththebehavioristapproach,continuedwithcognitivism,andendedupwithconstructivistapproachforthetimebeing.Constructivismgainedattentionforseveralreasons,suchasitslearner-centeredapproachandactiveparticipationofstudents(Frank,Lavy,&Elata,2003;Richardson,2003).Inclasseswhereconstructivistapproachesareimplemented,studentshaveachanceoflearningbydoing,enhancingtheircriticalskills,andshapingtheirlearningprocessbybeingactiveparticipants.Project-basedlearningisoneofthemethodsgroundedinconstructivismbysupportingstudentengagementinproblem-solvingsituations(Doppelt,2003).Studentsinaproject-basedlearningenvironmentdealwithreal-lifeproblems,whichmayresultinpermanentknowledge.Justastherearedifferentapproach-estoclassroomimplementation,therearealsoalternativeapproachesforper-formanceassessment.Rubric,self-assessment,andportfolioaresomeofthesealternativeassessmentmethods(Corcoran,Dershimer,&Tichenor,2004).Thequestionof“Whichassessmentmethodsuitsamorespecifiedteachingmethod?”isadifficultonetoanswer,asitdependsonsuchvariablesastargetaudienceandcontent.Becauseeffectiveteachingissensitivetoeducationalcon-text,boththeprocessandproductshouldbecarefullydesignedandassessed.Thus,thisresearchstudyismainlybasedonaconstructivistapproach,withproject-basedlearningastheteachingmethodande-portfolioassessmentastheevaluationstrategy.

WHYPROJECT-BASEDLEARNINGASATEACHINGMETHOD?Project-basedlearningcanbedefinedbrieflyas“amodelthatorganizeslearn-

ingaroundprojects”(Thomas,2000,p.1).Eventhoughassigningprojectstostudentsintraditionalclassroomsisnotanewphenomenon,project-basedlearningisquitedifferentfromtheusualapplication.Thomaslistedfivemajorcriteriaforamethodoflearningtobecalledproject-basedlearning:

•project-basedlearningprojectsarecentral,notperipheraltothecurriculum,

•project-basedlearningprojectsarefocusedonquestionsorproblemsthat“drive”studentstoencounterthecentralconceptsandprinciplesofadiscipline,

•projectsinvolvestudentsinaconstructiveinvestigation,•projectsarestudent-driventosomesignificantdegree,and•projectsarerealistic,notschool-like.(p.4)

Theproject-basedlearningmovementhasspreadquicklyandhashadmanypractitionersadoptit.However,Barronetal.(1998)urgedthatfollowingaproject-basedlearningapproachforinstructionrathernecessitatesanimmediatechangeinnotonlythecurriculum,butalsointheinstructionandassessmentpartsforinstruc-torsandstudents.Thenewroleoftheinstructorinaproject-basedlearningimple-mentationisdefinedbyFrank,Lavy,andElata(2003)aswhen“…lecturingtopas-sivestudentsisreplacedbyencouragingmotivation,tutoring,providingresources,andhelpinglearnerstoconstructtheirownknowledge”(p.280).

Thomas(2000)definedtheissuesaboutthepositivesideeffectsofproject-basedlearningforstudentsasthedevelopmentofpositiveattitudestowardtheirlearningprocess,workroutines,abilitiesonproblem-solving,andself-esteem.Similarly,Green(1998)emphasizedthatparticipantsinproject-basedlearninglearnbetterandaremoreactivelyactingintheirlearning.Ontheotherhand,theinstructorsworkbackstageasstudentsworkontheirprojects.Thisturnsparticipantsintoactiveproblemsolversontheprojects,ratherthanpassivere-ceiversofknowledge.Preuss(2002)notedthatasstudentscompletetheirproj-ects,theythinkreflectivelyontheirexperiencesaboutproject-basedlearningprocessesindividually.Besides,studentsrealizesimilaritiesbetweenwhattheyarelearningandwhatisgoingonoutsidetheschoolwalls.

Eventhoughstudentsgetdisturbedintheearlystagesoftheimplementationofproject-basedlearningintotheircourses,moststudentsfeelmoremotivatedastimeelapsesinaproject-basedlearningcourse.Becauseproject-basedlearn-ingprovidesstudentswithopportunitiestoimplementtheirfreedomintheirlearningenvironment,theygiveuptheirhabitofwaitingforstep-by-stepin-structor-basedcommands(Lenschow,1998).

Lenschow(1998)suggestedapplyingatrial-and-errorapproachbeforemov-ingtoalarge-scaleproject-basedlearningproject.Asmallscaleproject-basedlearningtrialincludingfivetofifteenparticipantswouldbeasatisfactoryat-tempttoseeitseffectonstudentsandrelatedissueswithitsimplementation.Thissmall-scaleattemptwillhelpinstructorsrealizethechallengesofproject-basedlearning.Forexample,FrankandBarzilai(2004)providedalonglistofpossiblechallengesofusingproject-basedlearning:

Teachers’contentknowledge,students’lackofexperienceinthisnewapproachandtheirpreferencefortraditional-structuredapproach;theirpreferenceforlearningenvironmentwhichrequirelesseffortontheirpart;andproblemsarisingfromtimestress.Studentsstrugglingwithambiguity,complexity,andunpredictabilityandareliabletosensefrustrationinanenvironmentofuncertainty,wheretheyhavenonotionofhowtobeginorinwhichmannertoproceed.(p.43)

Heckendorn(2002)explainedthatprojectsinproject-basedlearningre-quiremuchlongertimetocomplete,arecomplexinnature,andsituatedinreallife.Additionally,project-basedlearningconcentratesbothontheend-productandtheexperienceoftheprocess.Duetotheemphasisontheproject,itschoiceisamajorconcernforinstructors.Projectshavetherespon-sibilityoftrainingstudentstotakecomplexreal-lifeconcernsanddividingthemintomorespecificandsmallersteps(Solomon,2003).Forthatpurpose,ÖzdenerandÖzçoban(2004)pointedoutthatprojectsmightbeappliedinpersonalorgrouplevelsinwhichstudentsutilizetheirthinking,problemsolving,andcreativityskills.

AsLenschow(1998)proposed,aprojectistobeascloseaspossibletoreal-ity.Toclosethegapbetweenreal-lifeandschoolenvironments,Heckendorn(2002)urgedthatdeadlinesshouldbeemphasizedinaproject-basedlearningenvironmentasinareal-lifesituation.Moreover,boththeoryanditsapplica-tionsshouldberegulatedunderthelightofstudents’competencelevel.Ad-ditionally,theamountofprojecttimeshouldbeadjustedsothatstudentscanconcentrateonthepartsofaproject.

WHYUSEE-PORTFOLIOSASANASSESSMENTINPROJECT-BASEDLEARNING?

Becauseassessmentisanintegralpartofthelearningcycle,itismaintainedbothduringandattheendofproject-basedlearning(Solomon,2003).FrankandBarzilai(2004)suggestedthattraditionalassessmentstrategieswillnotbeappropriateforgaugingthegoalsofaproject-basedlearningcourse.Asanal-ternativeassessmenttype,theportfoliomethodiswidelyusedforproject-basedlearningbecauseitscomponentsarethereflectionsofstudentsfordifferentpe-riods,improvementintheirprogress,andprospectivegoals.

AccordingtoBarrett(2001),aportfoliocanbedefinedascollectedworksandreflectionsofstudentsthatdemonstratetheirgrowthalongtheprocess.Similarly,anelectronicportfolioisdefinedasthecompilationofportfolioitemsstoredinelectronicformatssuchasaudio-visual,graphical,ortext(Bar-rett,2001).Themainideaofusingane-portfolio“…istokeepstudentsfo-cusedonlearningratherthanonindividualprojectsorproductse-portfoliosarepartofthelearningprocess,notaresultofit”(Garthwait&Verrill,2003,p.23).Constructivism,beinglearner-centeredandauthentic,canbeassociatedwithperformanceevaluationwithe-portfolioassessmentstrategies(Read&Cafolla,1999).Bytheuseofe-portfolios,studentshavethechancetoreflectupontheirlearningandteachershavetheopportunitytoprovidedetailed

feedbackonstudents’work(Ahn,2004).Amongmanyfeaturesofe-portfolioassessment,“thedemonstrationofcriticalthinkingthroughreflectivewritingaboutartifactconstruction,selection,andrevision”isthemostimportantas-pect(Lynch&Purnawarman,2004,p.51).

Duetothenoveltyofproject-basedlearningande-portfolioassessmentinTurkey,theeducationfieldsuffersfromlackofinformationconcerningwhichactivitiesarethemostproductive,therelativeeffectivenesswithrespecttootherteachingandassessmentmethodsintheTurkisheducationsystem,practicalrecommendationsontheplanningandevaluation,andontheappli-cationofproject-basedlearning,e-portfolio,andsoforth.

WHYTHEDESIGN,DEVELOPMENT,ANDEVALUATIONOFEDUCATIONALSOFTWARECOURSE?

TheDesign,Development,andEvaluationofEducationalSoftwarecourseisrequiredforseniorstudentsoftheDepartmentofComputerEducationandInstructionalTechnology,whichispartoftheFacultyofEducation.Thecoursehasaspecialsignificanceintheentirecurriculumbecauseitisthelastcoursebeforegraduationasteachers,andaimstoprovidestudentswiththeskillsofsoftwareproductionandevaluation.Theinstructor,withthehelpoftheteachingassistant,designedthecourseinsuchawaythatstudentswouldconstructtheirownknowledgeandskillsbyexperiencingreal-lifesituations.Project-basedlearningapproachande-portfolioassessmentwerethoughttobetheunderlyingframeworksthatwouldsuitthecoursebest.Itwasathree-creditcourse,whichlasted14weeks.TheweeklyscheduleispresentedinTable1.

Whendefiningthegoalsofthecourse,theinstructoremphasizedherdesiretomodifythestudents’conceptsofeducationalsoftwaredevelopment,in-steadofteachingspecificknowledge.Withinthefirsttwoweeksofthecourse,studentswereintroducedtothekeyconceptsandtheterm-project.Theinstructorandtheteachingassistantalongwiththestudentsdecidedtode-velopsoftwareforthecontentofanotherundergraduatecourse.Theselectedcourse,InstructionalTechnologyandMaterialPreparation,isalsoarequiredcourseforalltheDepartmentsoftheFacultyofEducation.Thiscourseisalsoathree-credit14-week-longcourse,takenbythird-yearuniversitystudents.Becauseparticipantshadalreadyattendedthiscourseintheirpreviousyears,andtheselectedcoursehadbeendeliveredbytheinstructorandtheteachingassistantmanytimes,thecontentseemedtobeappropriatefortheprojects.FromthecontentoftheInstructionalTechnologyandMaterialPreparationcourse,eachstudentselectedonetopicandstudiedthissametopicthrough-outthesemester.Subsequenttothetopicselection,needs,content,andmediaanalyseswereconducted.Inordertoperformtheseanalyses,ahow-toguide-line,preparedbytheinstructorandtheteachingassistant,wasdistributedtostudents.Fortheneedsanalysis,studentswereaskedtoconductinterviewswithatleastfivestudentsandtwoinstructorswhohadalreadytaken/giventheInstructionalTechnologyandMaterialPreparationcourse.Thesestruc-turedinterviewsaddressedissuessuchaslearningorteachingdifficulties,

misconceptions,adaptationtoreal-lifesituations,andadditionstoprofes-sionaldevelopment.Forcontentanalysis,studentssearchedtheavailableresources(Internet,library,coursebook,instructors)relatedtotheirtopics,andarrangedheadingsandrelatedactivities.Finally,themediaanalysiswasperformedtodepicttheappropriatesoftwareandhardware.Afterthepresen-tationofeachanalysisresultsanddiscussionsofthefindings,thestudentscre-atedflowchartsandstoryboards.

Table1:WeeklyCourseSchedule

Weeks Topics/Tasks LaboratoryAssignments1 BasicConceptsonEducational

SoftwareContentSelectionandAnalysis

2 BriefDiscussionontheproject SearchingfortheContentfromDifferentResources

3 Needs,Task,Technology,andMe-diaAnalysis

WritingAnalysisReports

4 PresentationandEvaluationofAnalysisResults

DevelopmentofFlowcharts

5 PresentationandEvaluationofFlowcharts

DevelopmentofStoryboards

6 PresentationandEvaluationofStoryboards

DesigningUserInterface

7 PresentationandSelectionofCommonUserInterfacefortheProject

RevisingandExploringtheUserInterface

8 EducationalSoftwareDevelop-ment

ContentDevelopmentandMediaProduction

9 EducationalSoftwareDevelop-ment

SoftwareIntegrationoftheDevel-opedContentandMedia

10 PresentationofEducationalSoft-ware

FinalizingtheSoftware

11 PilotImplementationofEduca-tionalSoftware

Real-LifeImplementationandDataGathering

12 DiscussionofExperiencesfromPilotStudy

CreatingEvaluationReportBasedontheDataGatheredfromPar-ticipants

13 PresentationofEvaluationReport RevisionoftheEducationalSoft-wareAccordingtoEvaluationResults

14 PresentationofFinalVersionofEducationalSoftwareDiscussionabouttheOverallCourse

SubmissionsofE-Portfolios

Theselectedprojecttopicswereaimedtobegatheredandtoyieldmultime-dia-basedsoftwareforthethird-yearundergraduatecourse.Thustheinstructor,theteachingassistant,andthestudentsdecidedtouseacommonuserinterface.Followingademocraticselectionprocess,acommoninterfacewasselectedfromamongtheonespreparedbyeachstudent,andrevisedaccordingtothefeedbackofthestudents,theinstructor,andtheteachingassistant.Aftertheagreementonacommoninterface,thesoftwaredevelopmentprocessbeganforthestudents.Moreover,theywereaskedtotryouttheirsoftwareonatleasttenstudentsofvariousdepartmentsfromtheFacultyofEducation.

ThesoftwaretryoutwasalsomaintainedwiththeadministrationofaMulti-media-basedSoftwareEvaluationQuestionnaire(MSEQ,seeAppendix,page325).MSEQwasoriginallydevelopedbytheinstructorandtheteachingas-sistant,becausethedevelopmentofsuchaninstrumentwasnotanobjectiveofthecourseandstudentsdidnotpossessnecessaryskillsorexperienceforsuchaninstrument.MSEQaimstogatherdataaboutparticipants’perceptionsonthesoftware,toguidethestudentsincollectingdataabouttheirsoftwareprod-ucts,andtowritetheirfinalreportsandisrevisedeachtermtomeetthespecificneedsofthecourseandstudents.MSEQwascomposedoffourparts:address-inginstructionaladequacy(26questions),curriculumadequacy(12ques-tions),visualadequacy(9questions),andtechnicaladequacy(19questions).Thestudentsconductedadescriptiveanalysistoanalyzethecollecteddataandpreparedafinalreport,whichincludedthefindingsofthestudyandtheirownperceptionsonboththeprocesstheyexperiencedduringthetry-outandexperi-encestheyhadthroughoutthesemester.Finally,afterrevisingthesoftwareinaccordancewiththefindings,studentssubmittedtheire-portfolios.

Itisworthnotingthatthroughoutthesemester,studentssentallthereportsontheirdeadlinesbye-mailtotheinstructor.Furthermore,allthepresenta-tions,exceptforthesoftwareitself,werepreparedusingpresentationsoftware.Thus,thee-portfolioincludedwrittenreports,multimediapresentations,sta-tisticalanalyses,andtwoversionsofsoftware.Theentirecoursewasgradedac-cordingtothecriteriapresentedinTable2.

Table2:CriteriaforAssessingProject-BasedLearning

Criteria %PresentationofAnalysisReport 20PresentationofFlowcharts 7.5PresentationofStoryboards 7.5PresentationofUserInterfaces 5PresentationofEducationalSoftware 10Real-LifeImplementation 20PresentationofEvaluationReport 20PresentationofRevisedEducationalSoftware 10

METHODResearchDesign

Themainobjectiveofthecourseistocontributetothesoftwareproductionskillsofstudentstocreateandtryouteffectiveeducationalsoftwarefortheirfu-tureclassrooms.Thecourseinstructorandtheteachingassistantcarriedouttheresearchstudy.Thus,thepurposeofthisstudywastoexploretheanalysis,plan-ning,design,development,implementationandevaluationissues,andprocessesthatpreserviceteachersencounterinaproject-basedlearningenvironment.Theresearchquestionsforthisstudywereasfollows:

1.Whatdopreserviceteachersencounterinaproject-basedlearningenvi-ronmentintermsofeachstepofeducationalsoftwaredevelopment?

2.Whatarethepreserviceteachers’perceivedadvantagesanddisadvantagesofimplementingaproject-basedlearningapproachforthecourse?

3.Whatwastheoverallsatisfactionaboutthecourseandtheinstructor?Thiswasacasestudy,asitneededanin-depthandlongitudinalexploration

ofoneparticularcaseforthepurposeofgainingadepthofunderstandingintotheissuesbeinginvestigated(Yıldırım&Şimşek,1999).Therefore,althoughfindingscanraiseawarenessontheinvestigatedissues,thegeneralaimisnottogeneralizethefindingstoothercases(Miles&Huberman,1994;Yıldırım&Şimşek,1999).Thequalitativeapproachwasperceivedassuitableforthisstudy,becauseitfocusedonthestudents’thoughts,behavior,anddifficulties.Qualita-tiveandquantitativetoolsforcollectingdataincludedanalysisofassignments,reportsandproducts,structuredformalandinformalinterviewswithstudents,andacourseevaluationform.Datawerecollectedatdifferenttimesandstagesthroughoutthecourse.

Forthequalitativeanalysis,students’interviewsandfinalreportswereana-lyzedandemergingcategorieswerefound.Finally,conclusionsweredrawnfromthesecategories(Miles&Huberman,1994;Yıldırım&Şimşek,1999).Forthequantitativeanalysis,descriptivestatisticswerecalculated.

TheParticipantsTheparticipantsofthestudyweresenioryearpreserviceteachersintheDe-

partmentofComputerEducationandInstructionalTechnologyintheFacultyofEducation,ataprivateuniversityinTurkey.Thenumberofstudentswaseight(fivefemalesandthreemales).

InstrumentsForgatheringstudents’perceptionsabouttheproject-basedlearningap-

proach,semi-structuredinterviewswereconductedwitheachstudent.Thequestionsaddressedthedifficultiesofeachstepineducationalsoftwaredesign,issuesofproject-basedlearningintermsofadvantagesanddisadvantages,andfuturerecommendations.

DataregardingtheoverallsatisfactionofthecourseandtheinstructorweretakenthroughaquestionnairenamedInstructorandCourseEvaluationQues-tionnaire,whichisformallyadministeredtoallstudentsinallclassesattheendofeachsemesterattheuniversity.Thequestionnaireconsistedof16questions

inadditiontodemographicinformationandaskingthedegreeofagreementlevelonthegivensentences,usingaLikertscaleofonetofive,inwhichonerepresentedstrongdisagreementandfiverepresentedstrongagreement.

RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONPreserviceTeachers’ExperiencesinaProject-BasedLearningEnvironmentinTermsofEachStepofEducationalSoftwareDevelopment

Thecoursestartedwiththeanalysisphase.Thecontentoftheprojectandthedevelopmenttoolweredeterminedtogetherwiththestudents,theteachingas-sistant,andtheinstructor.Thetopicswereselectedfromamongthefundamen-talknowledgeoftheInstructionalTechnology&MaterialDevelopmentcourseforensuringthevalidityofcontent,andthestudentswereaskedtochooseanytopictheydesiredtoworkon.Itisessentialforproject-basedlearningthatstu-dentsshouldworkonwhicheverprojecttheywant(Frank,Lavy&Elata,2003;Thomas,2000).Asthedevelopmenttool,immersiveanimationsoftwarewasselectedforseveralreasons,specifically:(a)thesoftwarewasflexibleandacces-sible,(b)studentshadalreadyexperiencedthatsoftware,c)thesoftwarewasfreefromdifferentplatforms,and(d)anavailabletechnicalinfrastructure.

Fortheneedsassessmentphase,studentswereaskedtointerviewboththein-structorsandthestudentswhohadpreviouslyattendedthecourse.Theinterviewresultswereconflictingbecausethecommentsoftheinstructorsandthecom-mentsofstudentsdifferedatsomepoints.Forexample,thetopicsmentionedbyinstructorsonwhichtheyhavedifficultiesteachingdifferedfromthetopicsmentionedbythestudentsonwhichtheyhavedifficultiesinlearning.Thisre-semblesthesamesituationinreallifeastheproject-basedlearningemphasized(Lenschow,1998;Thomas,2000).Needlesstosay,therolesofinstructorsandlearnersaredifferentinthesamelearningenvironment;therefore,theirpointsofviewwithrespecttothesamecoursemightdiffer.Moreover,theinterviewpar-ticipantswerefromdifferentsubjectareassuchasmathematicseducation,earlychildhoodeducation,primaryschoolteachereducation,andsoforth.

Withinthedesignphase,alongwiththedevelopmentofflowchartsandsto-ryboards,theinstructorandtheteachingassistantobservedthateventhoughseveralexampleswereprovidedforstudents,theycouldn’tproducecreativesce-nariosandhaddifficultiesshapingtheassessmentpartoftheselectedcontent.Hence,theflowchartsaswellasstoryboardsrequiredredesigningandfurtherassistancebythecourseinstructorandtheteachingassistant.Asreallifehasacomplexstructure,studentscannotadaptthemselvestothatreality(Frank&Barzilai,2004).Theflowchartsdemonstratedthatthelinearreasoningofstu-dentsandscenariosveeredawayfromtheconstructivistapproach.

Asthenextstep,beforepreparinguserinterfaces,allthepossibleinterfaceele-ments’functions,styles,andnavigationwerediscussed.Attheend,thegroupcametoacommonagreementaboutminimuminterfaceelements.Duetothisagreement,allthestudentsbelievedthattheseelementswouldworkforthesakeofthesoftwareandthestudents’success.Afteragroupdiscussion,itwasdecidedtouseacommoninterfaceratherthanindependentuserinterfaces.Inreality,softwaredevelopersworkindifferentteamsandthencombinetheparts

havingthesameinterfacestoproducematerial.Interfaces,preparedbyeachstudentandincludingtheseminimumelements,werepresentedandevaluatedwithrespecttothefollowingcriteria:colorharmony,graphicaldesign,graphicalresolution,visualadequacy,buttonbehaviors,interactivity,navigation,contentorganization,usability,andcreativity.

Thedevelopmentphasewasthelongestandthemostpainfulprocessintheproject.Eventhoughtheydecidedtouseacommoninterface,studentscriti-cizedthedifficultieswhileusingthecommoninterfacedevelopedbytheanima-tionsoftware.Moreover,studentscomplainedaboutfindingcontentinTurkish,audio-visualediting,applyingpredefinedscenarios,andpreparingquestionsoractivitiesforevaluation.Alltheseitemsservedthesamepurposeofdemonstrat-ingtothestudentshowdifficultaprocessitwastodeveloptheeducationalsoftware.

Becauseproject-basedlearningemphasizesreal-lifeapplications,theimple-mentationphasewasthemostimportantpartoftheproject.Studentshadop-portunitiestoseewhatarrangementswerenecessary,whatpointsneededspecialconsiderationthroughoutimplementation,andhowimplementationwascon-ducted.Students’challengesarelistedasfollows:

•Timescheduling•Supplementationofnecessaryequipment,suchasearphones• Installationofthesoftware•Participants’biastowardstheimplementer•Laboratorymanagement•Collectingsoftwareevaluationdata

Asthefinalphase,studentsevaluatedandpresentedthedata.ThequantitativeevaluationwasbasedontheMSEQandthequalitativeevaluationwasbasedontheobservationoftheimplementer.Inlightofthefindings,theclassdiscussedwhattheyexperiencedduringtheimplementationprocessandthepossiblecausesofthesefindings.Moreover,alternativesolutionswereidentifiedfortheinadequacies.Attheendofthecourse,studentssubmittedtheirrevisedprojectsande-portfolios.

PreserviceTeachers’PerceivedAdvantagesandDisadvantagesofImplement-ingaProject-BasedLearningApproachfortheCourse

Eventhoughstudentshadpreparedprojectsbeforethiscourse,thiswasthefirsttimetheyexperiencedproject-basedlearningande-portfolioassessment.Hence,theyhadtheopportunitytostatethepossibleadvantagesandchallengesofproject-basedlearning.Theperceivedadvantagesare:

•Eliminatingwrittenexamination•Learningbydoing•Eliminatingdirectinstruction•Havingclassroomdemocracy•Activeparticipation

Throughoutthecourse,studentshadcontrolovertheirownlearningaswellasovertheclassroomactivities.Thecoursecontributedtostudents’self-esteembygivingthemresponsibilityandvaluingtheirideas.E-portfolioassessment

decreasedstudents’stressandincreasedtheirself-confidence.ThisfindingsharesthesamepointofviewwithSolomon(2003)andFrankandBarzilai(2004).

Ontheotherhand,studentsalsoexpressedtheirideasonthechallengesofproject-basedlearning:

•Deadlines•Lossofself-motivation• Individualwork

Becausethiswasthefirsttimestudentswereparticipatinginsuchacourse,theyhaddifficultiesmakingtheirowntimeschedules.Theystatedthattheycouldnotmaintaintheirself-motivationlevelthroughouttheprojectdevelop-ment.Furthermore,havingcarriedouttheseprojectsindividuallytheywererequiredtoexpendsignificanteffortandwereoverloaded.

OverallSatisfactionabouttheCourseandtheInstructorUnlesstheinstructorunderstandsandactsasafacilitatorinaproject-based

learningenvironment,overallsuccesscannotbedetermined.Forthispurpose,InstructorandCourseEvaluationQuestionnaireresultsarepresentedinTable

Table3:OverallSatisfactionAbouttheCourseandtheInstructor

Question M1.Coursegoalsarebrieflyexplainedatthebeginningofthesemester. 4.432.Sufficientinformationissuppliedaboutmainandaccommodatingresources. 4.293.Theinstructoriswell-preparedforthelessons. 4.574.Theinstructorhascometolessonsontime. 4.575.Theinstructorwasaccessibleatoffice-hours. 4.436.Thecoursewasconductedaccordingtotheexplainedplan. 4.297.Studentsareencouragedtousesupportiveresources. 4.578.Studentsareofferedwithindividualopportunities(project,presentation,discussion,etc.)forparticipationinthecourse.

9.Thelanguageusedfordeliveringinstructionisclear. 4.4310.Theinstructorhascommunicatedeffectivelywiththestudents. 4.4311.Thecoursehourswasusedeffectively. 4.1412.Theinstructortriedtousevarioustools,methodsandtechniqueswhenevernecessarythroughoutthecourse. 4.2913.Theinstructorhassharedinnovationsaboutthecoursecontentwithstudents. 4.2914.Theinstructorhasgivenvaluetotheideasofstudentsonteachingandlearning. 4.2915.Assessmentquestionsarepreparedinparallelwiththecoursecontent. 4.2916.Studentsaregivenfeedbackonthecourseactivitiessuchasproject,presentation,andmidtermexam. 4.43

3.Themeanvalueforthisquestionnairewasfoundtobe4.37,showingahighlevelofstudents’satisfaction.

Therange(.43)amongitemsisextremelyclose,showingthatallstudentsweresatisfiedwiththecourseandtheinstructor.Moreover,themeanscoresarebetween“stronglyagree”(5)and“agree”(4).Studentsagreedthatproject-basedlearningproducedsuccessfulresultsfortheirownlearning.

CONCLUSIONOnevitalpointobservedbytheresearcherswasthestudents’inabilitytocre-

atescenariosfortheeducationalsoftware.Thismaybeduetothelackofcours-esemphasizingthinkingskillssuchascreativityandproblemsolving.Addition-ally,justoneinstructionaldesigncourseexistsinthedepartments’curriculum,andthissinglecourseisnotsufficientforthesestudentstocreatealternativedesigns.Therefore,thecurriculumoftheDepartmentofComputerEducationandInstructionalTechnologyshouldbeevaluatedandenhancedwithcoursesemphasizingcreativityandproblemsolving.Thiscurriculumanalysiswillyieldbetterresultsforproject-basedcourses(Barronetal.,1998).

Atthebeginningofthesemester,studentstogetherwiththeinstructorandtheteachingassistantdecidedtouseanimationsoftwareforseveralreasons.Attheendofthesemesterstudentspointedoutthattheyenhancedtheirknowl-edgeofthatsoftware,butcomplainedaboutusingacommoninterfacebecausetheyhadproblemsunderstandingthedynamicsofauserinterface.

Studentsalsocomplainedabouttheoverloadingduringthesemester.Themainreasonforhavingsuchaworkloadwasaresultoftheclasssize.EventhoughÖzdenerandÖzçoban(2004)proposedthatproject-basedlearningmightbeappliedforbothindividualandgrouplevels,forminggroupsoftwoorthreepeopleforcarryingoutsuchaprojectwouldbemoresuitable.Eightstudentswerecompulsorilygivenindividualprojects,andexpectedtofinishacompletemodulebytheendofthesemester.Ifthesameprojectwerecarriedoutbyeightgroupsconsistingoftwoorthreestudents,theywouldnothavebeenoverloaded.Thus,thisresultshowedtheimportanceofclasssizewhenimplementingsuchanapproach.

Thisstudywasasmallscaleproject-basedlearningimplementation,asitwasthefirsttrialoftheinstructor(Lenschow,1998).Satisfactoryresultsencouragedboththeinstructorandtheteachingassistanttoapplyproject-basedlearningtolargergroups.Becausethestudentswereabouttograduate,theirteachingmethodologyrepertoirewasenhanced,thusgivingtheopportunityofapplyingprojectbased-learningintheirfuturecareers.

Asfortheassessment,e-portfoliomethodwasfavoredbyallstudents.Get-tingweeklyfeedbackabouttheassignmentsandhavingtheopportunitytoredesigntheassignmentsbeforefinalsubmissionwereevaluatedbythestudentsasagreatchanceforself-improvement.Inaddition,useofe-portfoliosdemon-stratedalearning-centeredmodelforteachercandidates.Studentsalsostatedthattheygainedmoreknowledgeaboutthesoftwaredevelopmentprocessandlearnedmorefromtheirclassastheystartedtocreatetheire-portfolios(Hewett,2004).Moreover,studentsassociatedtheirexistingknowledgewithreal-life

contextthatenhancedtheirskillsandabilitiesinthefieldthroughtheuseofe-portfolios(Mason,Pegler,&Weller,2004).Simultaneously,studentsengagedinenrichedlearningexperiencesbothindividuallyandtechnologically(Wood-ward&Nanlohy,2004).

Althoughtheresultsofthisstudyweresatisfactory,theycouldnotbegeneral-izedduetoseverallimitations.Firstofall,thenumberofparticipantswaslow.Second,thestudywasconductedinaprivateuniversity,whichinTurkeymeansthatmoretechnicalfacilitiesarereadilyavailable.Third,thestudycontainedjustonecompulsorycourseandonesubjectarea.Finally,theresearcherswerealsotheinstructorsofthecourse.

RECOMMENDATIONSThefollowingsuggestionsarederivedfromthestudy:(a)largerclassesshould

beformedforeffectivegroupstudy,(b)animationsoftwareshouldbeevaluatedwithrespecttothecoursecontentbeforehand,and(c)e-portfolioswithtimelyfeedbackshouldbeusedforproject-basedlearning.

Basedonthelimitationsmentionedintheprevioussection,furtherstudiesshouldbeconductedtorevealtheimportanceofproject-basedlearningandrelevanceofusinge-portfolios.Thisresearchstudyshouldberepeatedwithadifferentcoursecontentandtargetaudience.Furthermore,experimentalstudiesmaybeconductedtorevealthedynamicsofproject-basedlearningtocompareindividualworkwithgroupwork.Alternatively,thesoftwaremightbechangedtodeterminewaysinwhichitaffectstheprocess,ifany.

ContributorsYaseminGülbaharisanassistantprofessorofComputerEducationandIn-

structionalTechnologyatBaskentUniversity.Herresearchinterestsincludee-learning,Web-basedinstructionaldesign,andtechnologyplanning.(Address:YaseminGülbahar,PhD,DepartmentofComputerEducationandInstruc-tionalTechnology,FacultyofEducation,BaskentUniversity,Ankara,Turkey06530;gulbahar@baskent.edu.tr.)

HasanTinmazisaninstructorofComputerEducationandInstructionalTechnologyatBaskentUniversity.Hisresearchinterestsincludeinstructionaldesign,adulttraining,technologyintegration,evaluationofeducationalsoftware,andtechnologytrainingofpreserviceteachereducation.(Address:HasanTinmaz,DepartmentofComputerEducationandInstructionalTech-nology,FacultyofEducation,BaskentUniversity,Ankara,Turkey06530;htinmaz@baskent.edu.tr.)

ReferencesAhn,J.(2004).Electronicportfolios:Blendingtechnology,accountabilityand

assessment.T.H.E. Journal, 31(9),12–18.Barrett,H.C.(2001).Electronicportfolios.Ineducationaltechnologyan

encyclopedia.Retrieved3December2005fromhttp://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/encyclopediaentry.htm.

Barron,B.J.S.,Schwartz,D.L.,Vye,N.J.,Moore,A.,etal.(1998).Doingwithunderstanding:Lessonsfromresearchonproblemandproject-basedlearn-ing.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4),271–311.

Corcoran,C.A.,Dershimer,E.L.,&Tichenor,M.S.(2004).Ateacher’sguidetoalternativeassessmenttakingthefirststeps.The Clearing House, 77(5),213–216.

Doppelt,Y.(2003).Implementationandassessmentofproject-basedlearninginaflexibleenvironment.International Journal of Technology and Design Educa-tion, 13,255–272.

Frank,M.,&Barzilai,A.(2004).Integratingalternativeassessmentinaproj-ect-basedlearningcourseforpreservicescienceandtechnologyteachers.Assess-ment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1),41–61.

Frank,M.,Lavy,I.&Elata,D.(2003).Implementingtheproject-basedlearningapproachinanacademicengineeringcourse.International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13,273–288.

Garthwait,A.,&Verrill,J.(2003).E-portfolios:Documentingstudentprog-ress.Science and Children, 40(8),22–27.

Green,A.M.(1998).Project-basedlearning:MovingstudentsthroughtheGEDtowardmeaningfullearning,(ReportNo.CE76930).SanAntonio,TX.ERICDocument ReproductionService,ED422466.

Heckendorn,R.B.(2002).BuildingaBeowulf:Leveragingresearchandde-partmentneedsforstudentenrichmentviaprojectbasedlearning. Computer Science Education, 12(4),255–273.

Hewett,S.M.(2004).Electronicportfolios:Improvinginstructionalprac-tices.TechTrends,48(5),26–30.

Lenschow,R.J.(1998).Fromteachingtolearning:Aparadigmshiftinengi-neeringeducationandlifelonglearning.European Journal of Engineering Educa-tion, 23(2),155–161.

Lynch,L.L.,&Purnawarman,P.(2004).ElectronicportfolioassessmentsinU.S.educationalandinstructionaltechnologyprograms:Aretheysupportingteachereducation?TechTrends, 48(1),50–56.

Mason,R.,Pegler,C.,&Weller,M.(2004).E-portfolios:Anassessmenttoolforonlinecourses.BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 35(6),717–727.

Miles,M.B.,&Huberman,A.M.(1994).Qualitative data analysis: An ex-panded sourcebook.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Özdener,N.,&Özçoban,T.(2004).Aprojectbasedlearningmodel’seffec-tivenessoncomputercoursesandmultipleintelligencetheory.Educational Sci-ences: Theory & Practice, 4(1),164–170.

Preuss,D.A.(2002).Creatingaproject-basedcurriculum. Tech Directions, 62(3),16–19.

Read,D.,&Cafolla,R.(1999).Multimediaportfoliosforpreserviceteach-ers:Fromtheorytopractice.Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 7(2),97–113.

Richardson,V.(2003).Constructivistpedagogy.Teachers’ College Record, 105(9),1623–1640.

Solomon,G.(2003).Project-baselearning:Aprimer.Technology & Learning, 23(6),20–26.

Thomas,J.W.(2000).Areviewofresearchonproject-basedlearning.Re-trieved18July2005fromhttp://www.autodesk.com/foundation

Woodward,H.,&Nanlohy,P.(2004).Digitalportfolios:Factorfashion?As-sessment andEvaluation in Higher Education, 29(2),227–238.

Yıldırım,A.,&Şimşek,H.(1999).Sosyalbilimlerdenitelaraştırmateknikleri[Qualitativeresearchtechniquesinsocialsciences].Ankara,Turkey:SeçkinYayınevi.

APPENDIX:EVALUATIONOFEDUCATIONALSOFTWARE

GeneralFeaturesofEducationalSoftware AveragePointInstructionalAdequacy

CurriculumAdequacy

TechnicalAdequacy

VisualAdequacy

Comments:

INSTRUCTIONALADEQUACY

Instructionalcontentiswelldesigned.

Informationisconsistentthroughoutthesoftware.Softwaremakesusersmotivated.

Softwaremakesusersactivelearners.

Thescopeofthecontentissufficient.

Informationispresentedassummary.

Contentissuitablewithculturalvalues.

Contentisfreefromspelling,punctua-tion,andgrammarerrors.

Informationispresentedinaclearandlogicalway.Contentissuitablefortargetaudience.

Softwareincludesinstructionalobjectives.

Softwareconsidersusers’priorknowledge.

Explanationsinsoftwarearesufficient.

Eachtopicissupportedbyexamplesthroughoutthesoftware.Drillandpracticeisprovidedtoaccom-plishobjectives.Softwareconsistsoftimelyfeedbacks.

Feedbacksarerelevanttotargetaudience.

Informationisup-to-date.

Softwarecanbeeasilymodified.

Softwareaddressesindividualdifferences.

Assessmentpartincludesvariousquestiontypes.Softwareincludedvariousteachingstrate-gies.Softwareincludesaccuratedirectionsforeaseofuse.Durationofanimationsisconvenient.

Softwareprovidesfacilitationtousers.

Eachmoduleprovidesasummaryattheend.

CURRICULUMADEQUACY

Softwareincludesvariousmaterialstosupportteaching.Softwareisappropriatefordifferentlearn-ingstyles.Softwareisappropriatefordifferentteach-ingstyles.

Softwareencouragesstudentstobemorecreative.Softwarecanbeusedindividually.

Softwarecanbeusedingroupactivities.

Softwareenhancesstudentachievement.

Softwarehasaflexiblestructure.

Softwareprovidesextra-curricularactivi-ties.Softwareconsidersdifferentlearningstylesequally.Softwarecanberelatedwithdifferentsub-jectfield.Softwareprovidesinformationaboutdu-rationofstudy.

VISUALADEQUACY

Colorsinscreendesignareharmonious.

Screenisdesignedaccordingtovisualde-signprinciples.Thereisnoillegibilitythroughoutthesoftware.Softwareisappealing.

Userscancontroltheinterfaceeffectively.

Screenisdesignedinasimplemanner.

Simulationsareconsistentwithreal-life.

Screensarenotcrowded.

Softwareisconsistentamongscreendis-plays.

TECHNICALADEQUACY

Softwarecaneasilybemodified.

Softwarecanbeinstalledeasily.

Softwarecanbeinstalledquickly.

Softwarerunscorrectly.

Softwarepermitsuserstocorrecttheirer-rors.Softwareprovidesuserswitheasynaviga-tiontoanytopicortask.Softwarerunswithoutspoolingtheuser.

Softwareiscompatiblewithdifferentplat-forms.Softwareiscompatiblewithdifferentsoft-ware.Technicalfeaturescanbechangedaccord-ingtouserrequest.Softwarehascompleteuserguide.

Userguideisacompleteandclear.

Softwarehasaneffectiveknowledgeman-agement.Textandaudioareinharmonythrough-outthesoftware.Graphics,text,audioandvideocompo-nentsareconvenientwiththecontent.Softwarevaluesuserprivacyandsecurity.

Softwareprovidesasimpleandclear“help”option.Softwareprovidesafriendly-printoption.

Interactionlevelinsoftwareissufficient.

AnyComments:

InstructionalAdequacy:

CurriculumAdequacy:

TechnicalAdequacy:

VisualAdequacy:

Other:

implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio ... · implementing project-based learning and...

Documents

implementing "plans" for service learning

implementing social learning

oracle project portfolio management cloud implementing...

implementing learning technology

implementing mobile learning

implementing the project portfolio - pmi · implementing...

peer learning network: implementing and sustaining...

implementing machine learning for finance

implementing project-based learning and e …...implementing...

successfully implementing kanban with portfolio/ upstream

e-learning, designing and implementing

implementing project portfolio management in a …€¦ ·...

implementing work-based learning activities

implementing successful e-portfolio-based learning julie...

learning portfolio

implementing devops learning outcomes

implementing mobile learning school programs

implementing virtual learning systems (vls)

implementing social learning

implementing an online learning initiative