A Webquest for language teaching and learning

1. A Webquest for language teaching and learning Eniko Csomay pICT Fellow San Diego State University Linguistics and Oriental Languages January 2006

2. Learning Goals and Learning Outcomes • A learning goal for the class (in line with programmatic goals) “Critically review traditional, multimedia, and on-line language teaching materials in the light of the [second language learning] theories discussed” (Linguistics 550 Syllabus) • Learning outcomes A partial proposal to ask for funding in support of the use of internet-based teaching and learning materials. The partial proposal will include a) a critical review of web-based language learning materials for ESL/EFL learners (through analysis and evaluation of those materials in the light of current theories of listening comprehension), and b) one sample worksheet that incorporates the critiqued web-based materials, however, incorporates them using current models.

3. Assessment 2 measures of assessment: • rubrics to evaluate product (proposal) • written feedback from students to evaluate process (steps in task)

4. Motivation to choose assessment measures: • rubrics • to evaluate the academic aspects of the task (e.g., critical thinking, materials development), i.e., to measure how well the learning goals are met through the learning outcome • anonymous short feedback after completing the task • to evaluate the pedagogical aspects of the task (e.g., the Webquest page, steps involved in carrying out the task), i.e., to measure how well meeting the learning outcomes is facilitated

5. Conclusions drawn from assessment: • Exceptional student performance on the academic measure • Overall positive response to the task and critique on two major aspects of the process: • quantity and quality of the preliminary steps involved before writing up the paper • lack of specifics on the exact content and format of the paper

6. Modifications • The steps involved in evaluating the websites will be streamlined by • spelling out the pedagogical purpose of each step and making clear how each connects to the overall project OR • reducing the number of steps OR • doing some of the preliminary steps during class time • incorporating both text AND graphic organizers or pictures into the Webquest pages to aid student comprehension of the various parts included in the process better. • Specifics will be provided as to the format of the proposal

7. Reflections • Expectations met: • general positive attitude towards the usefulness of the project • Expectations NOT met: • quality of students’ academic performance superceded my expectations (I didn’t think it would be so robust) • critique on the steps involved in carrying out the project was unexpected (I thought that was the strongest part of the project)

8. Research ideas? • How can I modify the elaborate step-by-step process without hurting the extremely favorable academic results? (e.g., which step(s) might be redundant?) • How would the same project be perceived if not all aspects of it were on line? How would that influence the quality of the academic outcome? • How would learning tasks need to be modified (i.e., what aspects/features) so that they are as successful when put on line as they are in the classroom or on paper?