Procedure

Table 3.2 outlines the timetable and weekly progress of the PBL activities for three years. In the first year, the computer teacher conducted PBL for eight weeks during the second semester. Since class time was one hour per week, by the time the PBL activity was assigned, students had received 20 hours of introductory computer science lectures and training in computer skills. During the experiment, students in each class were asked to form groups of three or four. Each group was asked to research and report on an important information technology development. During the eight-week experiment, the computer class focused on project work. The computer teacher checked students’

progress and provided weekly feedback.

In the first year, students were self-selected into groups of three or four. The central topic of the project was ―Information Technology.‖ Each group was required to identify an issue that is centrally related to information technology. Once the central issue was identified, each group was to do research on the Internet to help them better understand the issue and find the possible solutions. Students also needed to digest all the data that they gathered and transform it into writings of their own so that they could explain the issues and solutions to their peers using language appropriate to their age.

Finally, a website containing all of their work had to be established. The website had to contain an explanation of the chosen issue and their research findings as well as any helpful resources related to the topic. Furthermore, the website needed to be constructed using the website authoring tool taught in class, which is MS-Publisher. Students were also told at the beginning of the project that group presentations would be held at the end of the project. Furthermore, peer evaluations of the overall project as well as self-evaluation of overall project participation counted toward their final project grades.

For the final project presentation, the classes’ homeroom teachers, and the school principal were all invited to attend.

Table 3.2 Timetable and in class activities in the study

week Year 1: Computer Class Year 2: Geography and English Class Year 3: Geography and English Class 1  Learn to use MS-Publisher

 Research and group discussion  Research and group discussion

3

 Outline of project report  Outline of project report

4  Outline of project report  Draft of project report  Draft of project report

 Outline of project presentation 5  Initial draft of project report  Outline of project presentation  Oral presentation of project work

 Turn in final Project report

6

 Second draft of project report

 Outline of oral presentation

 Oral presentation of project work

 Turn in final Project report

7  Oral presentation I

 Turn in final project report 8  Oral presentation II

The project spanned a time frame of nine weeks. An outline of the weekly in-class

During this time frame, during the sixth and the seventh weeks there were no scheduled in-class lectures thus giving students two more weeks to concentrate on their project without having to deal with any new in-class materials.

In the second year, the geography teacher and the English teacher conducted PBL for six weeks in the second semester. In Taiwan, the 18-week long semester is naturally divided into three sessions with a school-wide examination on all subjects at the end of each session. Each session of classes is six-week long. PBL activities were conducted during the second session of the semester. Students were asked to form groups of three or four as in the first year. The project topics were chosen from the learning content during these six weeks, such that the PBL activity was used to reinforce the geography/English learning. Since both geography and English are NSCT subjects, the classes for the two subjects met several times a week – three times for geography and six for English. For the experimental groups, the two teachers reduced the lecture material and the regularly assigned homework to give students time to work on the project.

During the experiment, each of the two teachers devoted one class period per week exclusively to the project. The teachers also used that class period to assess the progress made by the group during the week. For the control groups, the normal in-class

lecture and take-home assignment routine were maintained. Therefore, the control group received more lectures and assignments than did the experimental group, since none of its class time was used for PBL activities.

For the English PBL, the teacher asked each student group to study the assigned readings (in English) on a particular animal, and then expand their knowledge by searching the Web to answer some open-ended questions. Finally they were to write a short report with a set outline. In the report, students were to practice English writing with different specific sentence structures. The goal of the project was to have students sharpen their reading skills and to practice writing an essay. As for the geography class, the teacher assigned a different South America country to each group. Each group was to research and report on the geological terrain, history, culture, and economy of the assigned country. Although the textbook already covered all those topics, students were required to go in more depth in their final group report. So the goal was to have each group research a particular country, and learn about other countries from other groups’

reports.

In the third year, the geography teacher and the English teacher conducted PBL for five weeks in the first semester. PBL activities were conducted during the first session of the semester. The classes for the two subjects met several times a week – four times for geography and seven for English. All the procedures were the same as in the second year.

For the English PBL, the teacher asked each student group to study the assigned readings (in English) on a particular international affair. As for the geography class, the teacher assigned a different geography project issue to each group.

Project assessment consists of three parts: assessment of the website content and the oral presentation, assessment of the learning attitude, and the overall project management. The course instructor was the evaluator of all three parts. However, students performed self-evaluations on their overall team effort and on their individual

contribution and learning attitude. In addition, each group was to give an assessment of how the other group did based on the oral presentation given in class. For each part, if there was more than one evaluator, each evaluator’s assessment would carry the same weight.

Table 3.3. Project Assessment Method.

Assessment Category Percentage Evaluator Assessment Tool Project contents and Oral Project management 20% Course instructor Progress assessment form