The particular form of collecting data used for this teacher research project was methodological triangulation. This method involves consolidation of data from multiple data collection sources such as participant observation, interviewing, and document analysis. The data included researcher journal entries based on observations, students’ and teachers’ interviews, videotape of student interactions, and surveys completed by the student participants. In addition to the two researchers, two middle school teachers were also involved with helping the students on their projects and were interviewed to obtain their perspectives on the group performances. The authors talked with a number of parents to obtain their perspectives about what their children were sharing with them regarding their group experience. Only the researchers knew which groups were formed based on student personality types.

In the beginning the authors sent out permission forms (see Appendix C) in order for the 6^th grade students to participate in the action research project. Since Geyserville Middle School is small, this represented one class of 30 students. While most of the parents returned the forms, the authors did have a few parents that were concerned about "testing" their children. Some of them felt that the authors were using their children similar to how a scientist would use a laboratory animal. A notice was sent out to all parents stating the authors would have an informational meeting and would answer all questions regarding the proposed project. At the meeting the authors assured the parents that the project was within the guidelines of the State curriculum. After that meeting the authors had the cooperation of all parents.

Groups were formed based on the results of a personality test. The test was administered in a 20-minute period during regular class time. Based on the test information, each student was assigned one of four colors that represented their dominant personality type. The authors placed students with different personality types into groups. The colors helped in simplifying the organization of the groups. Students were divided into seven groups, four groups were formed based on the results of the personality test referred to as experimental and three groups were formed randomly and referred to as control. Once groups were formed, they were instructed on the use of PowerPoint, Internet research skills and cooperative grouping protocol. After each group had identified their roles within the group, they were introduced to the WebQuest site and the two tasks that were required:

1. Ancient China PowerPoint presentation (two weeks allowed)

2. Construct and fly a kite (one week allowed).

Each member of the group indicated what components they would be responsible for in order to complete their group’s presentation. Each group was responsible for compiling information on a specific area of interest within the Ancient China WebQuest. This information was used in developing a PowerPoint presentation that would be shared with the class. The second component required groups to build and fly a kite based on plans from the WebQuest site.

As the groups began working on the WebQuest, there seemed to be high levels of excitement and chatter. In some groups, students had difficulty taking turns at the keyboard either entering data or searching for information on the Internet using the WebQuest. Other groups worked well from the beginning and were able to take turns at the keyboard without incident. One of the experimental groups could not seem to focus at all so the authors were forced to split this group up. The authors observed that the interactions of some of the ESL students were minimal possibly due to language difficulties. These students tended to sit back and not participate in the group thus impacting the group negatively. Other factors that may have had a negative impact on the participation of the students were reading levels. The WebQuest was written at a 6th grade reading level and some of the students the authors observed had difficulty in understanding some of the instructions. They needed additional guidance and interpretation so that they could understand what was being asked of them. The authors observed that the control groups had little or no reading difficulty while the experimental groups had a higher percentage of poor readers. Both sets of groups seemed to have equal knowledge of computer and Internet research skills.

As the groups progressed, it was observed that the students were more at ease navigating through the WebQuest site. In most groups they were able to utilize the hotlinks provided in the WebQuest which allowed them more time to construct their PowerPoint presentations as opposed to searching the Internet on their own.

As the project developed, there was a noticeable difference in the progress of the groups. The control groups were advancing more quickly, worked well together and seemed to be able to distill the information in building their presentation pages. Some of the experimental groups were observed to be unorganized and scattered in their progression of their presentation. Some of the experimental groups had vast amounts of information but were unable to come to consensus on what would be included in their presentation and guidance from the teacher was needed for the groups to progress.

By the end of the project, some of the control group members were assisting the experimental groups. In these cases, it was for using the advanced features in PowerPoint including sounds and animation.

On presentation day, it was observed that almost all the groups were ready to narrate their presentations. Some groups had more slides, sound effects, and animation than others did.

During the kite building task, it was observed that all groups worked well together. There were no issues of non-participation by any group members. Each group was observed to be on task and following directions. On the flight day, students were extremely excited and couldn’t wait to go outside to test their kite creations. Some of the groups had design flaws that hindered the flight of their kite. They were able to make changes to their design and test the flight worthiness of their kites again. In this case, the groups that had the "trial and error" aspect of their kite flying continued to work well as a group.

In order to determine from the students’ perspectives what they gained from being involved in the WebQuest, the authors gave the students a written survey and individually interviewed them to further discuss their responses.

First the students were asked to describe how successful their grouped worked as a team to complete the tasks, secondly to rate each member of the group using a given rubric (see Appendix B) and thirdly to state if they would work with their group again.

The Group Dynamic survey for the PowerPoint component of the project indicated that the control groups (of which there were three) faired much better than the four experimental groups. All members of the three control groups claimed that their groups worked exceptionally well and gave themselves high scores in terms of their collaboration. Using the survey rubric, 80% of the control members rated themselves as

Student responses to the second question showed the control groups were satisfied with their group membership with 100% receiving at least an accomplished level. The experimental groups were less satisfied with their group membership with about 40% receiving at least an accomplished level.

Student responses to the third question showed the control groups would work with each other again while the experimental groups stated they would prefer to have different members to work with.

The student motivation that the authors observed did, in fact, affect how quickly the group progressed through the WebQuest project.Those groups whose members were all motivated finished two to three days before the other less-motivated groups. It seemed that there was no correlation between motivation and the personalities of the group members.

The authors found that some groups began immediately to navigate through our WebQuest research page without having a definitive direction or goal thus affecting their performance and in general these groups finished last. Again, there seemed to be no correlation between the performance of this type of a group and their personalities.

Students that had prior knowledge and/or skills with the technology, had an advantage in affecting their groups outcome. These students tended to take on leadership roles within their groups.

Group dynamics were affected by students whose reading/comprehension abilities were below the 6th grade level and/or were second language learners with low English skills. These students tended to not participate and take a "backseat" role in the group. Again, there seemed to be no correlation between language/reading and personalities. Actually, some of the ESL students had positive contributions to their group despite the language barrier.

Teachers’ Perspectives

Through interviews the authors obtained the perspectives of the teachers about the benefits of using the WebQuest in their classrooms and how well their students worked in the assigned groups. Both teachers were extremely positive about the use of WebQuests and felt that their students showed a high degree of motivation and enthusiasm. One teacher requested that we plan another WebQuest unit with him. Initially the teachers questioned the composition of the groups stating that they were concerned about some of the group membership. They knew that two students in particular would get easily distracted if they worked together. They were impressed with the student outcomes and enjoyed the PowerPoint presentations.

At the Geyserville Middle School Annual Back-To-School Night, several groups showed their PowerPoint presentations to their parents. Most parents were impressed with the quality of their child’s skill level. One parent commented that initially they were skeptical about the use of the PowerPoint software and that it may be too difficult for the students to learn. But after seeing the results, they wanted to have technology integrated more into their child’s curriculum.

The authors believe that each learner’s brain is unique and educators must provide many opportunities for varied learners to make sense of ideas and information. Individuals learn best when they are in a challenging environment.

Activities such as those found in a WebQuest provide that challenge, allowing students the opportunity to develop their own knowledge rather than relying on the teacher or textbook to give them information. Students developed their own knowledge when they were able to:

• Research a topic and subtopics for their PowerPoint presentations (i.e. figure out how to best present factual information about Ancient China in an interesting and imaginative format).
• Decide what resources to use to locate information (i.e. personal interviews, Internet, magazine, trade books and electronic CD's).
• Help one another to learn technical skills or trouble shoot problems (i.e. figuring out how to make a PowerPoint presentation. How to build a kite that flies).
• Proof text and offer revising and editing suggestions.

All groups participating had difficulty initially navigating and reading the instructions on the WebQuest page. Although the authors had developed the WebQuest at a 6^th grade level, in consideration of developing future web-based learning activities, reading and comprehensive levels of the targeted students should be addressed.

While there are many ways to arrange students to work in cooperative/collaborative groups, the color personality test may be an option. Even though the results indicated that students randomly chosen performed better than the personality chosen students, it may still be a viable grouping technique. The sample sizes used in this study were very small and in the future larger samples may show different results. Modifications to the personality test may enhance results such as targeting questions for specific grade level comprehension. Because the sample sizes were small, 15 students, the authors didn’t have enough students to fill each group with different personalities that would compliment each other. Almost every group had students who were very close to other students in personality. Some students scored the same for different types of personalities. For instance, a student may have received the same score for the gold and orange personality. The researchers then chose one of the two that would best fit into the experimental groups. This may have skewed the results. Of course with a larger sample, the authors would most likely find more diversity in organizing the groups. Students enjoyed taking the personality test and "discovering" what type of personality they had.