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

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 309Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or

1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

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.

310 Spring2006:Volume 38 Number 3Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or


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.

4.14

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;[email protected].)

HasanTinmazisaninstructorofComputerEducationandInstructionalTechnologyatBaskentUniversity.Hisresearchinterestsincludeinstructionaldesign,adulttraining,technologyintegration,evaluationofeducationalsoftware,andtechnologytrainingofpreserviceteachereducation.(Address:HasanTinmaz,DepartmentofComputerEducationandInstructionalTech-nology,FacultyofEducation,BaskentUniversity,Ankara,Turkey06530;[email protected].)

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

Total

Comments:

INSTRUCTIONALADEQUACY

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agre

e

Neu

tral

Disa

gree

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Not

App

licab

le

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

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agre

e

Neu

tral

Disa

gree

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Not

App

licab

le

Softwareincludesvariousmaterialstosupportteaching.Softwareisappropriatefordifferentlearn-ingstyles.Softwareisappropriatefordifferentteach-ingstyles.



Softwareencouragesstudentstobemorecreative.Softwarecanbeusedindividually.

Softwarecanbeusedingroupactivities.

Softwareenhancesstudentachievement.

Softwarehasaflexiblestructure.

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

VISUALADEQUACY

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agre

e

Neu

tral

Disa

gree

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Not

App

licab

le

Colorsinscreendesignareharmonious.

Screenisdesignedaccordingtovisualde-signprinciples.Thereisnoillegibilitythroughoutthesoftware.Softwareisappealing.

Userscancontroltheinterfaceeffectively.

Screenisdesignedinasimplemanner.

Simulationsareconsistentwithreal-life.

Screensarenotcrowded.

Softwareisconsistentamongscreendis-plays.



TECHNICALADEQUACY

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agre

e

Neu

tral

Disa

gree

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Not

App

licab

le

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