Project-Based Learning and Technology

Social theories of learning stress the importance of psychological tools as mediators for the development of students’ higher mental function (Vygotsky, 1978). In particular, computer tools and learning environments can help students to express their own knowledge, to explore the knowledge of others integrated in these environments, and

also to provide appropriate feedback and scaffold their thinking and actions in order to deepen understanding. Tools can act as mediators of sociocultural development to help a student enhance their Zone of Proximal Development, which is essential in the development of their knowledge.

Whether computers can be of benefit to the learning process has been a topic of discussion since the 1950s. Computer technology has promised to revolutionize both teaching and learning in education. Roblyer (2005) identifies two changes that have been brought about by the integration of technology. The first is an increase in the number and type of technology resources that are available to instructors and learners. The second is the shift in learning strategies that the flexibility of computer technology affords. From a constructivist perspective, computer technology has the potential to support diverse needs and capacities within the student population and to allow students greater control over their learning (McCombs, 2000), as well as the potential for deeper processing of information, especially if the computer is used to replicate authentic activities.

The tendency to learn by doing has always been a part of the informal educational process. However, up to now it has been difficult to replicate the kind of atmosphere necessary for constructivist learning because working with the theory required that a classroom has time, and financial and material resources that were often not available.

Today, however, constructivist notions are easily facilitated by the introduction of computer technology. Branching out from the theories of Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky, constructivists initially saw the computer as a tool that would allow students the opportunity to discover and learn through active experience (Roblyer et al., 1997). The technology is used in four ways as: a knowledge source, a data organizer, an information presenter, and a facilitator (Dawson, Pringle, & Adams, 2003; Pringle, Dawson, &

Marshall, 2002). Constructivists value technology because it enhances collaboration, independence, creativity, reflection, hands-on active engagement, relevance to self, and

pluralism (Lebow, 1995). Literature contains research concerning the benefits of implementing a constructivist learning environment along with the integration of technology into the classroom (Jonassen, 1996). For example, teachers using computers have reported students with increased motivation, enthusiasm, and self esteem (Faison, 1996). Looking at teaching-learning environments, one can see an increase in shared responsibility, group interaction, and interdisciplinary research. Students are increasingly willing to explore information. Therefore, computer technology is frequently used as a means of supporting learning and instruction in PBL (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).

Technology is not an essential part of PBL, but computers have been found to facilitate its implementation (Edelson et al., 1999; Kong, 2007).

The PBL approach has been shown to be particularly effective when combined with computer technology (Barron et al., 1998; Edelson, Gordin, and Pea, 1999; Stites, 1998). Moursund, Bielefeldt, and Underwood (1997) advocated the increased use of information technologies in project-based learning as an ―excellent vehicle for helping students to learn how to carry out tasks in which they budget their time, make effective use of limited resources, and work with other people‖ (p. 63). Because technology has the advantage of supporting diverse needs and capacities within the students, it encourages inquiry, constructs teaching products, and allows students greater control over their learning (Pulkkinen, 2007; Wood, 1995). Therefore, given the increasingly pervasiveness of the Internet, technology is a key tool in PBL (Land & Greene, 2000).

Uses of technology to facilitate PBL implementation can be categorized as technology-supported PBL or production-oriented PBL.

1. Technology-supported PBL

In technology-supported PBL, the technologies are often used as technology communication tools (Hafner & Ellis, 2004), telecollaborative project work tools (Harris, 1998; Anderson, 2002), technology research tools (Land & Greene, 2000), technology

scaffold tools (Synteta & Schneider, 2002; Intel TwT, 2011), and technology management tools (Denis et al., 2005; Rooij, 2009).

(1) Technology communication tools: students use the media to converse and interact with peers, experts, and other audiences (Hafner & Ellis, 2004). Particular types of activities ranging from key pals or electronic mentors to tele-fieldtrips and social action projects may be adapted to and extend the specific contents of different subjects. The technology communication tools include e-mail, web forums or even Internet chat and other Internet conferencing functions or programs.

(2) Telecollaborative project work: Telecollaborative project work is a term that has developed to describe online student project work that combines the use of telecollaboration and some form of a project-based activity (Harris, 1998). Reports and studies have identified telecollaborative project work as an innovative teaching practice and a powerful methodology for promoting learning (Andersen, 2002).

Various organizations and Internet sites such as Global SchoolNet, International Education and Resource Network (iEARN), Schools Online, Oracle Education Foundation’s Think.com, International E-Mail Classroom Connections (IECC), ePals, and KidLink support this practice and provide platforms for K-12 schools to accomplish student project work.

(3) Technology research tools: students use technology as a tool to locate, evaluate, and collect information from a variety of sources (Land & Greene, 2000).

(4) Technology scaffold tools: content-neutral software program (Progress Portfolio) to create the instructional scaffolds, Intel thinking tools, or the integration of an intelligent tutor as a software coach (Synteta & Schneider, 2002; Intel TwT, 2011).

(5) Technology management tools: efficient management of group processes and of the group’s ―memory‖ (Denis et al., 2005; Rooij, 2009).

2. Production-oriented PBL

In production-oriented PBL research, however, such technologies are often used as production tools that enable students to organize and present their research work through multimedia. Cognitive load theory (Penney, 1989) and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning ( Mayer, 1997) indicate that, when learners process multimedia data simultaneously, they integrate numerous types of information and form mental models based on their understanding of the learning material.

One promising approach involves multimedia presentations of explanations in visual and verbal formats. Our cognitive theory of multimedia learning draws on dual coding theory, cognitive load theory, and constructivist learning theory. It is based on the following assumptions: (a) working memory includes independent auditory and visual working memories (Baddeley, 1986); (b) each working memory store has a limited capacity, consistent with Sweller's (1988, 1994) cognitive load theory; (c) humans have separate systems for representing verbal and non-verbal information, consistent with Paivio's (1986) dual-code theory; (d) meaningful learning occurs when a learner selects relevant information in each store, organizes the information in each store into a coherent representation, and makes connections between corresponding representations in each store (Mayer, 1997). Figure 2.1 depicts a cognitive theory of multimedia learning with these assumptions.

Production-oriented PBL thus affords students opportunities to construct authentic demonstrations of learning and to increase their knowledge and self-efficacy in the subject matter. By working together to generate productions of knowledge, the students and the teacher become both learners and creators of new knowledge (Kay, Rosalyn &

Debra, 2008). Multimedia-assisted, project-based learning promotes a learner-centered constructivist model, helps students develop skills for retrieving information from multiple resources, and motivates students intrinsically by providing a sense of ownership and accomplishment (Moursund, 2003).

Figure 2.1 a cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 1997)

This research uses Production-oriented PBL that offers students opportunities to simulate authentic learning and to increase their knowledge and self-efficacy in the given subject. Our research is a direct reference to The Challenge 2000 PBL+MM Model research. Students need to digest all the data that they have gathered and transform it into writings of their own so that they can explain the issues and solutions to their peers using language appropriate for their age. Finally a website containing all of their work must be established.

Thomas et el. (1999) described five criteria that a project must have in order to be considered an instance of PBL. The five criteria are (1) PBL projects must be central to the curriculum (centrality); (2) PBL projects must focus on questions that induce students to encounter the central concepts (driving question); (3) the activities of the project must involve the construction of students’ knowledge (constructive investigations); (4) projects are student-driven (autonomy); and (5) projects are realistic and not school-like (realism).

PBL is especially effective when it is supported by educational technology (Solomon, 2003). One immediate benefit of practicing PBL is that it can motivate students to

engage in their own learning. PBL can help students establishing connection between the knowledge learned in the classroom and the skills needed in the outside world. In this regard, ―life skills‖ or ―process skills‖, including metacognitive skills, social skills, group process skills, multiple intelligences, and dispositions and attitudes associated with independent learning, make thoughtful decisions, take initiative, and improve student problem-solving and higher order thinking skills (Blumentfeld et al., 1991; Means &

Olson, 1997).

Researchers have investigated the impact of project-based learning (PBL) in a wide variety of educational contexts ranging from early childhood education to medical and legal education. The PBL approach has attracted a growing audience among teachers in the k-12 and university communities. (Hafner, W., & Ellis, J. T., P, 2004; Lewis, P. S., Alacaci, C., & O’Brien, E. G, 2002). Over the past few years, the Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project (Challenge 2000) has developed a model for student project-based learning with multimedia, referred to as PBL+MM. The PBL+MM model includes seven dimensions that define a PBL+MM activity: challenging multidisciplinary curriculum, sustained student effort over an extended time frame, student decision making, collaboration, real-world connections, ongoing assessment, and use of multimedia application programs. They also outlined six basic steps for planning out a successful PBL+MM project: (1) decide on the project, (2) draft time frame, (3) plan activities, (4) plan for assessment, (5) begin project with students, and (6) finish project and reflect. We have followed those six basic steps in planning our PBL project experiment.