Introduction
Motivating and engaging students is a problem that educators have dealt with for a long time. Educators are constantly looking for a better way of help students gain knowledge from the curriculum. The purpose of this action research project is to determine if the use of WebQuests will increase student engagement in learning. Technology is a tool used by educators to tap into the student’s interest. With television, video games, video cameras, and the Internet providing constant visual entertainment and stimulation for students, education needs to also stimulate students to help engage them. Currently, we expect students to learn in an environment with very little visual stimuli. How can teachers compete with the entertainment business? One approach is to integrate technology into the classroom. Using the Internet to engage students in learning is one way of creating visual stimuli for students. Having technology in the classroom also allows for inquiry, problem-based, and collaborative learning to occur. According to Weiss (1994, p. 1) “Technology has been shown to make learning more student-centered and to encourage cooperative learning.”
Inquiry Learning
Inquiry learning, a strategy in which learners explore and probe questions to develop generalizations and conclusions, has been used in science education since the 1950s and 60s (Anderson, 2001, para. 1). “Since the early 1900s, teaching practices used in public schools have fallen into one of two categories: traditional/teacher-centered, or progressive/student-centered” (Stone, 2001, para. 3). Inquiry learning is student-centered, with the teacher acting as a guide, mentor, or a coach. When integrated into the classroom, inquiry learning consists of an environment in which students are encouraged to be actively involved in the pursuit of answers to questions. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2001), inquiry is defined as “the examination into facts or principles, research, a request for information, and a systematic investigation often of a matter of public interest.” The preceding definition implies a strong, logical connection on the process of education.
There is a structured process to inquiry learning (Jakes, Pennington, & Knodle, 2000). The first step is presenting the information or data. The information can be presented orally by the instructor or can be in the form of a handout, book, or web page, which the students can read independently. Next, students explore and query the information given. To accomplish this, students discuss the information with their peers and instructors. This helps them to more fully understand the information given, as well as formulate questions they may want to investigate. Students then develop ideas, concepts, or generalizations about the information. Again, discussions with peers and instructors can clarify or even solidify these ideas. Lastly, students apply their ideas to another setting to test their validity.
Through this process, students’ involvement can lead to understanding. “ ‘Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand.’ The last part of this statement contains the essence of inquiry-based learning,” says workshop author Joe Exline (Exline & Costa, 2001, para. 1). Involvement in learning implies that the learner processes skills and attitudes that permit resolutions to questions and issues, which promotes the construction of new knowledge. However, a traditional educational setting has often discouraged the freedom of inquiry. Children’s natural curiosity is often diminished by instruction that discourages questioning and discovery (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1995, para. 4). Some teachers have felt that inquiry learning replaces their role as a teacher. There is even a tendency to view it as fluff learning (Exline & Costa, 2001, para. 4) Some of the discouragement of the natural inquiry process may come from a lack of understanding about the deeper nature of inquiry-based learning. Effective inquiry is more than just asking questions, it is an atmosphere and environment of trust in the classroom. In this environment, teachers develop scaffolding, a process of introducing information and skills in a logical order so as to use them to complete a future task, to help students through the learning process and let students direct the process (Fleming, 1999, para. 1).
Teacher education has started introducing inquiry-based learning into the teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities. At Pacific Lutheran University’s School of Education students are structuring coursework to meet their own needs and interests (de Klerk & Deekle, 1993, p. 48). Cathleen Yetter, assistant professor of education at The University of Washington, Tacoma, said, “Inquiry-based learning allows students to learn how to learn. With this method, students are not just knowledgeable about a particular text but know how to inquire themselves” (de Klerk & Deekle, 1993, p. 48). As more colleges and universities include inquiry-based learning in the teacher-education curriculum, teachers will have a better understanding of its implementation in the classroom.
Inquiry learning has many benefits for students and the educational process. Students become lifelong learners rather than relying solely on temporary rote memorization. Students also develop the essential adult skills of decision-making and planning a course of action; these skills are essential to operate as a functional citizen (Jakes, 2000, Conclusion section, para. 1). Students tend to be more engaged in the learning process because they are actively involved. According to W.L. Bateman (1990), “Using inquiry and discovery, you will engage the students’ interest, raise their critical abilities, focus their learning, and provide subject matter of sufficient importance to help them build new mental patterns while discarding some old assumptions” (p. 41).
Variations or Inquiry Learning
Educators have recognized the value of inquiry-based learning. Currently, many of the programs and theories being used today are based on the principles of inquiry learning (Jones, 1996). Problem-based learning tries to focus students on real world problems through an inquiry process. The Future Problem Solving Program was created to promote student problem solving, while focusing on stimulating critical thinking skills (University of Wyoming, 2001). Another theory, closely related to inquiry, is constructivism. Constructivism is a well-respected learning theory, which is often confused with inquiry learning because of their similarities. Each of these variations will be discussed below.
Problem-based learning is a strategy of providing real world problems for students to solve (Savoie & Hughes, 1994). Teachers develop scenarios and provide background knowledge and resources for students. Students, usually working collaboratively, solve the problems with a minimal amount of direct teacher instruction. “Real-life problems seldom parallel well-structured problems; hence, the ability to solve traditional school-based problems does little to increase relevant, critical thinking skills students need to interact with life beyond classroom walls” (Jones, 1996, para. 5). This approach to education makes the transition from school to work easier for students. If students are only taught how to regurgitate information from a textbook, they will be inadequately prepared for the rigor of most jobs. In most school settings, however, problem-based learning would be hard to do as the only means of learning in the classroom. Teachers who integrate problem-based learning into the curriculum can help connect students to real world situations, while helping them to develop valuable problem solving skills (Samford University, 2000).
The Future Problem Solving Program (FPSP) is a nation-wide educational program that promotes and encourages problem solving in students. Dr. E. Paul Torrance created this program to stimulate creative thinking skills in students. Students compete against other students who are in similar age groups at the state, national, and even international levels. According to the program, based at the University of Wyoming, “Students involved in the Future Problem Solving process learn how to think critically, analytically, and creatively. The development of thinking skills is divergent from traditional education, which places emphasis on providing information” (University of Wyoming, 2001, para. 2). This innovative program is helping to shift the focus of education from processing information to discovering it and applying it.
There are many different views of constructivism today. Some of the views find constructivism to be a more radical theory than inquiry learning, while others expand inquiry learning to include constructivism (Anderson, 2001, para. 5). “Many scholars who study human learning would argue that significant learning demands an active process for which the label of constructivism, or inquiry learning, would be appropriate. In other words, inquiry is the essence of learning” (Anderson, 2001, para. 5). The active involvement of students in the learning process is the common thread between inquiry and constructivism even from a radical viewpoint. Ernst von Glasersfeld breaks down constructivism into two basic principles. The first is that, “knowledge is not passively received either through the senses or by way of communication, but is actively built up by the cognizing subject” (von Glaserfeld, 1987, as quoted in Heylighen, 1995, para. 1). The second is that, “the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the subject’s organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of an objective ontological reality” (von Glaserfeld, 1987, as quoted in Heylighen, 1995, para. 1). Thus, students learn by doing, not by being merely receptors of knowledge or information. When students construct meaning, they do so as active participants in the acquisition of knowledge. They need to assimilate information and massage it so they can make it fit into a scheme of knowledge they already have. Teachers, in their role, need to be concerned with how they are designing lessons. Teachers should not design lessons that require students merely to sit and accumulate information. Rather, according to the constructivist theory, teachers should develop lessons that get students to collaborate and assimilate information for meaningful learning to take place.
Collaborative Learning
Whatever happened to the phrase, “two heads are better than one?” And why do all teachers not use this idea in the classroom? There has, however, been a push in the 1990’s, both in education and in business, to use the concept of working and learning in groups (Robyn, 2000). This concept has been referred to in different ways. Many people are calling it collaborative learning. Defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, collaborate means, “to work together, esp. in a joint intellectual effort” (1982). Another phrase, cooperative learning, is also commonly used. Cooperate is defined as, “to work or act together toward a common end or purpose” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1982). However the word is defined, it may be the most effective tool in bringing about a change in traditional teaching methods (Adams, 1998). It has also been said to be a solution to “an astonishing array of educational problems” (Slavin, 1971).
History of Collaborative Learning Research
The principles of collaborative learning have been studied for many years. Kurt Lewin, assisting graduate students Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White, set up an experiment with four groups of eleven-year-old boys in Iowa City, Iowa in 1938. The purpose of the experiment was to determine to what extent and in what ways the behavior of leaders shape group behavior. According to Lippitt, there was more quarreling and hostility in an autocratically led group and more friendliness and group spirit in one led democratically. The following year, in 1939, more experiments were done with more groups of boys. From the experiments of 1939, Lewin, Lippitt, and White found that “in the autocratic atmosphere the boys were much more likely to lose initiative, to be restlessly discontented, to become aggressive and fight with each other, to damage play materials, and to function as individuals on their own with no concern for group goals or the interest of other members” (Marrow, 1969). The second, democratically led group, which developed into the “laissez-faire” atmosphere, was “friendly, open, cooperative, and full of life” (Marrow, 1969).
Collaborative learning is a strategy that involves the use of small, highly structured groups of students working together on common problems to maximize their learning as well as the knowledge of the others in the group. In collaborative learning students learn from and teach each other (Crane, 2000). These small groups can be organized into three different types of collaborative units: formal cooperative learning groups, informal cooperative learning groups, and cooperative base groups. These groups are classified by the length of time the group works together. Formal groups work together in varying time frames from one class period to several weeks and usually are focused on a single task or assignment. Informal groups usually work together in duration from a few minutes to one class period. These groups tend to meet briefly, sometimes for no more than a five-minute discussion. Base groups are together for a longer period of time. A typical length of time for these groups to work together is one year. Base groups offer continued support, encouragement, and assistance on all assignments during this time (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994).
There are several components that must be in place to constitute a collaborative group. Groups must be created heterogeneously, with positive group interdependence, individual accountability, and using group processing (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994). Using heterogeneous grouping allows a mix of genders, races, and cultural differences, which will add to a group’s perspectives as a whole. Positive group interdependence must be in place to make sure that individuals in the group are supporting each other. This can be done through group rewards and encouragement (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994). Each member must feel that no one is successful unless the group is successful. Each individual must also be accountable to the group. Roles within a group can keep each member involved and feeling successful as the group succeeds. Finally, the functions of the group should be discussed and evaluated. As with the individuals themselves, the functions and efficiency of groups must develop and improve (Crane, 2000).
Variations of Collaborative Learning
Over the years, researchers and theorists have come up with their own interpretations, or variations, of collaborative learning, with each theorist focusing on a particular aspect of collaboration. Vygotsky and Piaget, both well-known cognitive theorists, valued the social aspect of collaborative learning. Piaget’s theories on constructivism share many of the same components as collaborative learning. Piaget’s social-constructivist theory dictates, “Cooperative interaction with others is an important element in giving all students an opportunity to make sense of what they are learning” (Adams, 1998). Mueller paraphrased Vygotsky’s work as collaborative learning being a part of a process leading to the social construction of knowledge (Mueller, 2001). Other theorists found different positive attributes in collaborative learning. According to Mueller, Burron, James, Ambrosio and Ossont, collaborative learning is a strategy to help students improve their intellectual skills (Mueller, 2001). While many have studied the various attributes of collaborative learning, few have argued its effectiveness as a teaching tool in the classroom. The following section provides the historical context of collaborative learning in the classroom.
The World War II Interruption
The Iowa studies caught the attention of the educational community. However, World War II interrupted group behavioral research. Research in this area did not start again until the 1970s (Mueller, 2001). There was a resurgence of studies on collaborative learning and other related topics in the 1970s. Since the 1970s, there has been a multitude of studies and books written on the effectiveness of collaborative learning. As of 1990, there were 68 studies that covered the effects of collaborative learning. Five years later 99 studies had been completed (Slavin, 1995).
Benefits of Collaborative Learning
Benefits for Teachers
Collaborative learning is an effective classroom tool that benefits both teachers and students. For teachers, collaborative learning is a classroom management tool (Chizhik, 1998). Students work together within their independent groups solving their own problems as they arise. This enables teachers to spend more time with groups or individuals who may need direct instruction or intervention. While working in collaborative learning environments, studies have shown students benefiting in areas such as academic achievement and self-esteem. Improvements have also been demonstrated in the integration and inter-group relationships of students who have ethnic and physical and mental handicaps (Slavin, 1991).
Benefits for Students
Student achievement has been closely studied with respect to collaborative learning. By the 1990s, 40 different four-week long studies had been performed to compare collaborative methods to traditional ones. Thirty-three of the forty groups showed a significant increase in learning with the collaborative group compared to the traditional group. The other seven groups showed no significant difference in outcome or performance, but not one group out of forty showed that traditional teaching methods help students to learn more than collaborative methods (Slavin, 1991).
Studies have also determined specific areas of achievement with students who work in collaborative groups. These benefits include increases in student retention, productivity, understanding of objectives, and participation (Robyn, 2000). A study of twenty-nine sixth and seventh graders working in collaborative groups for over five weeks found that they had learned better when they were “doing something” as opposed to “just reading” and “answering questions” (Mueller, 2001). These students were motivated by activities and processes built into the group assignment. Referring to a study at the University of Missouri-Rolla in the winter of 1996, Manning wrote, “By planning for meetings, setting agendas, and communicating between meetings, they (students) stayed more focused on the task than they otherwise would have (Manning & Riordan, 2000, p. 248). Many studies have also stated that collaborative assignments promote critical thinking, which could result in more effective learning and student satisfaction. In these groups, students are able to bounce ideas back and forth, while giving feedback and reinforcing each other’s ideas (Scifres, 1998). Students tend to feel more comfortable talking to each other than talking to teachers. They speak in verbiage that makes more sense to them and they can speak more directly (Chizhik, 1998). To be effective in the classroom, teachers must gain the interest of their students and provide a comfortable, open atmosphere in which to learn. The students must be given understandable reasons for engaging in tasks if they are to be expected to actively engage in relevant learning (Briton, 2001). Collaborative learning strategies have given students reasons for engaging in assignments.
Self-esteem has also been found to increase when students work on collaborative group activities. “One of the most important aspects of a child’s personality is his or her self-esteem” (Slavin, 1991, p. 17). Two of the biggest components of self-esteem are a student’s feeling that they are well liked and that they are academically successful (Slavin, 1995). Collaborative learning activities have been found to create both of these views within students. Studies have found that students have a greater liking for their classmates after participating in collaborative group activities (Slavin, 1991). Working together toward one common goal creates a similar bond as in sports teams. Having to sacrifice and depend on the success of others strengthens the trust among students, which is a vital component of friendship. As stated in The American Heritage Dictionary, a friend is “a person whom one knows, likes, and trusts” (1982, p. 534).
Collaborative learning has also been shown to be an effective strategy for integration (Slavin, 1991, p. 15). In many studies, students were asked to list their friends before and after the group activities (Slavin, 1991, p. 15). Of the many changes in friendships, there were more changes from the same ethnicity to different ethnicities than the reverse. This was not true simply by classes created with a mix of ethnicities. Students, given an opportunity to get to know and trust individuals of different races and cultures, created friendships despite differing backgrounds and ethnicities. Another integration resulting from the use of collaborative learning is with physically and mentally handicapped students (Slavin, 1991, p. 16). The use of collaborative groups reduced much of the normal rejection of mainstreamed students and increased their academic achievement and self-esteem. The same evidence has been found to be true of emotionally disturbed students (Slavin, 1991).
Entire programs have been created nationwide to work on improvements in areas such as student self-esteem, race relations, mainstreaming, and student achievement (Slavin, 1995). Through collaborative learning strategies, students have shown improvements in each of these areas and more (Slavin, 1995). Students also gain valuable skills for today’s job market. Their highly developed communication skills, understanding of teamwork, and respect for diversity will make them valuable to employers (Andres, 2000). Beverly Crane, in her book, Teaching with the Internet (2000), stated that jobs in the future will focus on collaboration, project-based team activities, and the use of technology.
Push to Incorporate Collaborative Learning
Although the research supports the use of collaborative learning, many teachers are still not using it. In response, the U.S. Department of Education has funded a grant to provide professional development for collaborative training of 10,000 teachers in Cleveland, Phoenix, and Miami (Charp, 2000). This model for in-service training is being done by the Stevens Institute of Technology. There is also a push for virtual collaborative high schools. The state of Florida has funded one such school. By the spring of 2000, 1,900 students had already enrolled in the school from 65 different districts (Charp, 2000). In Pennsbury, Pennsylvania, $9.2 million was spent to set up a network to support students’ sharing of work throughout their district. One thousand two hundred classrooms, 11,206 students, and 16 buildings are connected, covering 50 square miles (Pennsbury School District, 1999). Similar networks have been set up in California. The Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County currently has every school in its district connected through a computer-based network. This includes six high schools, six middle schools, six continuation schools, and thirty-one elementary schools. Sheldon High School, one of the high schools in the Elk Grove district, currently uses over 1,000 computers with over 4,000 users. With all of the support available, teachers will have great opportunities to put collaborative learning to work.
Collaborative learning is well on its way to becoming the teaching strategy of the future. It has become more common as a professional growth strategy in pre-service and in-service training for teachers across the nation. The positive effects of collaborative learning have been studied since the 1930s, implemented and praised through the 1990s, and are currently being advocated by many organizations, including the U.S. Department of Education.
There are many reasons to use collaborative learning in the classroom. However, the driving force has been the advance in technological communication. The Internet, as well as other computer tools, provides a way to use collaborative learning as an instructional method. Students can communicate with each other around the world and retrieve and share information, while still working toward the common goal of learning (Crane, 2000).
Web-Based Learning
Teachers are constantly trying to improve student achievement and motivation. Numerous strategies are used in an effort to accomplish this, as well as scaffold curriculum. Web-based learning is one of the many tools teachers are using. However, web-based learning provides an environment that allows “active participation and meaningful, higher level thinking” (Dodge, 1996b, para. 12). Defined by Gray and Palmer (2001), web-based learning also “is primarily dedicated to distributing course materials to augment traditional class-room learning” (para. 10). Web-based learning is not a stand-alone teaching strategy. It is typically complimented with constructivist teaching. According to Dodge (1996b), in the constructivist learning environment, it is not the accurate transfer of knowledge from instructor to the learner that is important. Instead, the learner is given tasks and opportunities, informational resources and support, and is encouraged to construct his or her own version of the content. Web-based learning suggests that this knowledge can be obtained with the assistance of the computer.
History of Web-Based Research
Web-based learning is an infant in the history of education. The World Wide Web has only been accessible to most Americans for about ten years. The idea of web-based learning was not even a concept ten years ago. The fact that web-based learning is so new makes reviewing the literature on it so exciting. The Internet is also one of the fastest growing new technologies ever. According to Gray and Palmer (2001), the Internet is growing exponentially. The U.S. Commerce Department reports, for example, that traffic on the Internet has been doubling every 100 days. Radio existed for 38 years before it had 50 million listeners. Television took 13 years to reach 50 million viewers. It took the Internet just four years to achieve 50 million users (Gray & Palmer, 2001). This rate shows how powerful the Internet has the capacity to be. As the Internet continues to grow, web-based learning will grow and become a much more influential part of education.
How Web-Based Learning is being used
Schools today have a tool that allows them to expand the definition of education. The Internet is a huge library that allows schools, students, and the public to access information that would be difficult to get in other situations. However, the Internet is more than the library. It allows communication in seconds between people located thousands of miles apart. It allows people to teach others from differing locations. This gives students a change to collaborate with people they would not have been able to in the past. The Internet has changed how we do things and we are improving education.
Web-based learning is becoming the distance education classroom of the future. Colleges everywhere are changing their distance education classes to online classes. More than 800 American universities and colleges already offer degree courses online, and many more offer non-degree courses (Gray & Palmer, 2001). Included in these numbers is a Master’s of Arts in Education program through California State University, Sacramento, which is web-based and in a distance learning setting (Hannah, McVicker, & Menchaca, 2001). Students have collaborated on projects from various locations. Students have corresponded from Sacramento, San Francisco, Napa, and even the state of Texas. However, because of the Internet, all students took the same classes, from the same teachers, and at the same time. This program, like most web based programs, has moved away from the traditional distance education setting. The traditional setting would involve a professor lecturing to a classroom audience of students, while others watched the class on televisions from a remote site, such as their home. Although previous distance learning settings have given students from varying areas the opportunity to be involved in courses they otherwise could not, it does not create an active learning, student-centered environment. Traditional distance education can also be time consuming and expensive. The buildings, technicians and equipment are costly, not to mention the cable airtime. Many of these costs can be eliminated through web-based learning. With more computer users, broad-based acceptance of the Internet, and increased credibility for the Web, it is no surprise that opportunist or entrepreneurial providers of distance education are putting more courses online (Gray & Palmer, 2001).
According to Dodge (1996a), using the Web forces active learning. In active learning, “students must do more than just listen: they must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems. Most important, to be actively involved, students must engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. To promote active learning, students must be engaged in activities where they are “doing things” and “thinking about what they are doing” (Seeler, Turnwald, & Bull, 1994, para. 4). When students are interacting with the information they become active learners. Dodge supports the benefits of active learning with the following statement: “Active learning puts the responsibility of organizing what is to be learned in the hands of the learners themselves, and ideally lends itself to a more diverse range of learning styles” (Dodge, 1996a, para. 1). Web-based learning, which is capable of reaching a wide range of students and learning styles, is an excellent compliment to active learning.
Constructivism and Web-Based Learning
Learning on the Internet is very compatible with the constructivist theory. The knowledge base on the Internet is vast. Using the Web breaks down the walls that separate schools from everything else (Dodge, 1996a). It allows schools and students to access information they ordinarily could not access. Using the vastness of the Internet, teachers can focus less on transmitting information and allow students to discover it themselves (El-Hindi & Leu Jr., 1998). It allows students to actively participate in meaningful, higher level thinking.
Although web-based education is in its earliest phase, it holds extraordinary promise (Commission, 2000). With the promise of web-based learning, educators can make lifelong learning a practical reality. The Web-Based Education Commission (2000), initiated by President Clinton in 1999, feels that if learning is centered on the student instead of the classroom, the focus of learning will be on the student’s strengths and on the need of the individual learner. “Most educational researchers seem to agree that technology can have a significant positive impact on kids--if it's used in the right way” (Weiss, 1994, p. 1)
Inquiry, collaboration and web-based learning are all valuable resources in the classroom. However, teachers need to be able to properly scaffold them into their lesson plans to maximize their benefit. An example of such a tool for educators in structuring lessons in their classes is a WebQuest.
WebQuests
Bernie Dodge first developed WebQuests with the help of Tom March, in 1995. According to Dodge (2001), a WebQuest is “an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web (para. 1). WebQuests are designed to use learners' time well, to focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners' thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation” (para. 1). WebQuests provide the structure students need to navigate the Internet, while providing critical thinking, cooperative learning, authentic assessment, and technology integration for the classroom. Tom March sees a WebQuest as being “an inquiry activity that presents student groups with a challenging task, provides access to an abundance of online resources and scaffolds the learning process to prompt higher order thinking” (March, 1995, para. 25). However, WebQuests also offer much more.
Features of WebQuests
WebQuests focus on a problem that needs to be answered. Students are led to hypothesize and evaluate real world problems using real world resources. WebQuests give the student’s buy-in or ownership of the activity. Thus, student learning is intrinsically motivated.
March (2000) states that there are three key components to a WebQuest: real, rich and relevant. WebQuests provide real resources for students by providing students with access to an abundance of expert opinions. Students usually only have access to textbooks, encyclopedias or magazines in their school or county libraries. However, the Internet provides students with the ability to “directly access individual experts, searchable databases, current reporting, and even fringe groups to gather their insights” (March, 1998, para. 9). The fact that information involved in a WebQuest is so current makes it rich with authentic resources. “Thus we can introduce students to interesting thematic relationships and juxtapositions that create a richness and complexity that should be the goal of every top-notch WebQuest” (March, 2000, para. 3). WebQuests create a relevant task by dealing with real world problems; ones that student can relate to. The rich and relevant components are what make the WebQuests authentic.
“WebQuests are appealing because they provide structure and guidance both for students and for teachers” (Dodge, 2001, p. 1). They help make the Internet user-friendlier. WebQuests help structure a student’s learning and keep them focused on the learning goals of the lesson. While inquiry, collaboration, and web-based learning are the learning styles of the future, WebQuests are the tool for teachers to structure and deliver lessons. In the words of Walt Disney, in 1966 “I'd love to be part of building a school of tomorrow . . . this might be a pilot operation for the teaching age - to go out across the country and across the world” (Leinsing, Rosen, & November, 1997, p. 31). Now we can go across the country and across the world, with the click of a button.
Technology is a tool to help teachers engage students. It allows for inquiry-based activities to occur in the classroom. Therefore, making the curriculum more student centered and less teacher-centered. Collaboration also is possible when using the Internet in the classroom. Collaboration helps students work on their social skills and their ability to work with others. It also increases student achievement and engagement. Web-based learning is the distance education of the future. It allows everyone access to information that was not easily available before the Internet. Finally, WebQuests provide the scaffold for the use of the Internet for students. It makes the Internet more manageable while making the activity more relevant. It does this by allowing the activity to be rich with resources, related to the real world and a problem-solving activity. The Internet has so much to offer education, as long as it is presented in a manageable, meaningful way.
References
Adams, D. M. (1998). Collaborative inquiry in science, math, and technology (1st ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Anderson, R. D. (2001). Inquiry in the everyday world of schools. Retrieved October 16, 2001, from Eisenhower National Web site: http://nasc.uwyo.edu/wfpsp/nascwfpsp.htm.
Andres, Y. (2000). EduNet. T H E Journal, 28(2), 42-46.
Bateman, W. L. (1990). Open to question: The art of teaching and learning by inquiry. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Briton, D. (2001). Online workers' education: How do we tame the technology? International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(2), 117-135.
Charp, S. (2000). Collaborative learning. T H E Journal, 28(2), 16.
Chizhik, A. W. (1998). Collaborative learning through high-level verbal interaction: From theory to practice. Clearing House, 72(1), 58-61.
Crane, B. E. (2000). Teaching with the internet: Strategies and models for K-12 curriculum (1st ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
De Klerk, A & Deekle, P. V. (1993). Perceptions of library leadership in a time of change: Pacific Lutheran university. Liberal Education, 79(1), 48-49.
Dodge, B. (1996a) Active learning on the web (k-12 version). Retrieved October 2001, from San Diego State University, Department of Educational Technology Web site: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/active/ActiveLearningk-12.html
Dodge, B. (1996a) Distance learning on the world wide web. Retrieved October 7, 2001, from San Diego State University, Department of Educational Technology Web site: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/ctptg/ctptg.html
Dodge, B. (2001). Five rules to writing a great webquest. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(8), 6.
El-Hindi, A. E., & Leu Jr., D. J. (1998). Beyond classroom boundaries: Constructivist teaching with the internet. Reading Teacher, 51(8), 694-700.
Exline, J., & Costa, A. L. (2001). Inquiry-based learning. Disney Learning Partnership. 2001. Retrieved October 13, 2001, from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/month6/index.html
Fleming, D. S. (1999). Inquiry learning. The Interdisciplinary Teamed Instruction Review, 1(3). Retrieved October 13, 2001 from http://www.ael.org/rel/iti/make9912.htm
Gray, D., & Palmer, J. (2001). Learning styles and web-based learning: The 4MAT methodology. WebNet Journal, 3(2), 43.
Hannah, L., McVicker, B. & Menchaca, M. (2001). Internet master’s in educational technology. Retrieved November 8, 2001, from California State University, Sacramento Web site: http://imet.csus.edu.
Heylighen, F. (1995). Epistemological Constructivism. Retrieved October 6, 2001, from Principia Cybernetica Web site: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CONSTRUC.html.
Jakes, D. S., Penington, M. E., & Knodle, H. A. (2000). Using the interent to promote inquiry-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.biopoint.com/inquiry/ibr.html
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). Cooperative learning in the classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jones, D. (1996). Problem based learning. Retrieved October 1, 2001, from San Diego State University, Learning Tree Web site: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/Ltree.html
Leinsing, D., Rosen, L. S., & November, A. (1997). Building a community of excellence. The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi: Celebration of Excellence. National Forum, 77(1), 31-38.
Manning, L. A. & Riordan, C. A. (2000). Using groupware software to support collaborative learning in economics. Journal of Economic Education, 31(3), 244-252.
March, T. (1995, June 2001). Working the web for education. Theory and Practice on intergrating the web for learning. Retrieved October 5, 2001, from http://www.ozline.com/learning/theory.html
March, T. (1998, September 10, 1998). Why webquests? An introduction [web page]. Retrieved October 5, 2001, from http://www.ozline.com/webquests/intro.html
March, T. (2000). Working the web for education: Let's keep them real, rich, and relevant. Multimedia Schools. Retrieved October 21, 20001, from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/nov00/march.htm
Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Merriam-Webster, I. (2001). Merriam-webster's collegiate dictionary. 2001.
Mifflin, H. (1982). The american heritage dictionary (2nd College ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mueller, A. F. (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work at school. Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 259-265.
Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism from philosophy to practice, Stem~Net Educational Networking in Newfoundland and Labrador. 2001.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1995). Critical issues: Providing hands-on, minds-on, and authentic learning experiences in science. Retrieved November 7, 2001, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc500.htm.
Pennsbury School District. (1999). Pennsbury schools move to collaborative learning. THE Journal, 27(2), 123-126.
Robyn, E. (2000). Creating tribes. College Teaching, 48(2), 65-68.
Samford University. (2000). Who is doing problem-based learning? Retrieved November 8, 2001, from Samford University, Educational Development Center Web site: http://www.samford.edu/schools/education/pbl/pbl_index.html.
Savoie, J. M & Hughes, A. S. (1994). Problem-based learning as classroom solution. Educational Leadership. 52(3), 54-57
Scifres, E. L. B., Ravi S. (1998). An empirical investigation of electronic groups in the classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 73(4), 247-250.
Seeler, D. C., Turnwald, G. H., & Bull, K. S. (1994). From teaching to learning: Part III. Lectures and approaches to active learning. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 21(1).
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning (3rd ed.). Washington D.C.: National Education Association.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stone, J. E. (2001). What really works in the classroom? Retrieved November 17, 2001, from http://www.heartland.org/education/mar01/works.htm.
The Web-Based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice: Web-Based Education Commission.
Torrance, E. P. (1974) Future problem solving program: Opening doors to the future. Retrieved October 13, 2001, from http://www.fpsp.org/overview.html.
University of Wyoming. (2001). Future problem solving program. Retrieved October 16, 2001 from University of Wyoming, Future Problem Solving Program Web site: http://nasc.uwyo.edu/wfpsp/nascwfpsp.htm.
Weiss, J. (1994). Keeping up with the research. (tips on how to use technology to provide a positive impact on kids). Technology & Learning, 14(5), 30-34.