Developing Educational Web Projects via an Action Research Approach

1. Developing Educational Web Projects via an Action Research Approach Hao Yang, Sai-Wing Pun, Yuen-Yan Chan

2. Introduction • This presentation introduces an action research model on developing educational web projects: TIED - target, implementation, evaluation, and development. Implications are drawn about how these components are connected, and how they impact the endurance of the web projects' design and development. Two samples with brief description are included.

3. One Point of View • Simply browsing does not necessarily result in students’ thinking and learning. • WWW has so many interesting topics to explore and it is so easy to explore that students are often follow links that let them lose, rather than reach, their learning goal.

4. Another Point of View • Teachers feel themselves confused or not clear on how to get started on integration of Web-based technology into teaching and learning. • there are so many variables on WWW: resources (hardware, software, and technical support), funding, levels of expertise, content areas, findings, etc.

5. How do teachers help and encourage student use the WWW effectively and meaningfully, yet students won’t be easily distracted in hyperspace? It requires teacher to find solution(s).

6. Furthermore… • When classroom teachers participate in related graduate program and/or professional training, they often find that they completed the courses/workshops with technology learned relatively little from the hands-on activities of simply “doing” without “understanding”. In such cases, the main objectives from courses/workshops are focused on technical details. Therefore, teachers are busy taking action without appropriate reflection and deep learning.

7. How do college instructors and professional trainers lead and engage classroom teachers to create projects that are authentic, meaningful, and useful for their teaching and professional use? It challenges us to go for some of critical strategies.

8. Research vs. Practice • Studies have shown that there is a gap between traditional research and practice. This gap can be explained from both researchers and teachers’ sides. • From some researchers’ point of view, teachers are passive receivers of research edicts. These researchers overlook the complexities of teaching, the concrete problems and concerns which teachers meet in their daily activities • From teachers’ point of view, education research is practically irrelevant since research articles sometimes get overly descriptive, use jargon common to a very few, and focus on methodology and hypothetical notions that are not connected to their daily practice.

9. Aspect of Action Research • Classroom-based studies initiated and conducted by teachers, often defined as action research, provide teachers with the opportunity to explore issues of interest and concern to them in an effort to improve classroom instruction. • Unlike to some approaches to research leaving the practical application a mystery, despite buzzwords such as “theory into practice”, one big advantage of action research is that findings are easily translated into practice.

10. Components of Action Research • Action researchers in education generally focus on three stages of action: • initiating an action • monitoring and adjusting its progress • and evaluating the action to be shared with other

11. Target Implementation Evaluation Development Action Research and Web Development TIED

12. Target • This part includes: • analysis and sort of tasks (participants, grade level, content area, needs assessment) • decision on types of projects (class web, learning topic web, resource web, field trip web, or inquire-based WebQuest, etc) • plan of timeline (short-term project or long-term project, workability and potentiality of project).

13. Implementation • This part contains: • investigation of previous similar researches/projects, instruments (the availability and feasibility of hardware and software) • infusion of elements into web project (text, sound, graphics, layout, internal and external links) • instruction for class (guidance for students visiting the web, clarifying the objectives and goals).

14. Evaluation • On this part, teachers should: • carefully collect the records/data through observing on students application, interviewing/communicating with students, and/or conducting surveys • intentionally find out the strengths and weakness on the web project • continually enhance the web project for the future usage.

15. Development • The good Web sites are updated regularly based on others’ comments and the continuing insights of the developers. Teachers may need to keep revising what they have done and putting latest contexts that they think are going to enhance their Web projects.

16. Suggestions • TIE is based on perspective of action research. The successful web project may have the following characteristics: • Real, so teachers can understand, motivate and dedicate on what they are doing • Related, so teachers can relate them to their knowledge and experience • Practical, so teachers can excel their computer skills, materials and equipments

17. http://www.oswego.edu/Acad_Dept/s_of_educ/cigrad/WebQuest/caves_files/project.htmlhttp://www.oswego.edu/Acad_Dept/s_of_educ/cigrad/WebQuest/caves_files/project.html

18. http://www.oswego.edu/Acad_Dept/s_of_educ/cigrad/WebQuest/Chrisquest/nys/http://www.oswego.edu/Acad_Dept/s_of_educ/cigrad/WebQuest/Chrisquest/nys/

19. Conclusion TIE approach provides the students with the ability to more authentically interact with their subject and make connections that are more inherently meaningful to their own lives and previous learning. It provides an opportunity for students to develop greater technological competency while reflecting on their own learning processes, to develop a deeper understanding of the projects they are engaged in, and to enhance skills needed to solve real-world problems.

20. References • [1] Provenzo, E. F. (1999). The Internet and the World Wide Web for preservice teacher. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. • [2] Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computer as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. • [3] Barron, B. J S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., and The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271-311. • [4] Yang, H. H. (2001). Mission possible: Project-based learning preparing graduate students for technology. In J.D. Price, D. A. Willis, N. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual (pp. 2855-2857). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computer in Education. • [5] Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 53-66). New York: Macmillan. • [6] Patterson, L., & Shannon, P. (1993). Reflection, inquiry, and action. In L. Patterson, C. Santa, K. Short, & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action (pp. 7-11). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. • [7] Tomlinson, C. A. 91995). Action research and practical inquiry: An overview and an invitation to teachers of gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(4, 468-484. • [8] Johnson, A. P. (2002). A short guide to action research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. • [9] Barone, T., Berliner, D. C., Blanchard, J., Casanova, U., & McGown, T. (1996). A future for teacher education: Developing a strong sense of professionalism. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (4th ed., pp.1108-1149). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA. • [10] Keen, A. (1996). Action research: The teachers’ perspective. Master thesis, State University of New York at Oswego. • [11] Suter, W. N. (1998). Primer of education research. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. • [12] Lewin, K. (1947). Idem field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. • [13] Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. • [14] Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. • [15] Miller, G. & Bench, K. (1996, November, December). Get in on the action. Learning, 25(3). • [16] IT in Education Learning Community at CUHK available at http://course.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/community