CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.2 S TUDENT Q UESTIONNAIRE ON PBL A CTIVITIES
4.2.2 Student Questionnaire on PBL Activities in phase II and III
Table 4.4 presents the student questionnaire and the cumulative statistical data on the students’ responses at the end of the second-year experiment. Although the questionnaire employed a 5-point Likert Scale system, for ease of presentation, the
―Strongly Agree‖ and ―Agree‖ responses were grouped into one category and the
―Strongly Disagree‖ and ―Disagree‖ responses were grouped into another. The data in the table represents cumulative responses from all students in the three experimental groups.
The student questionnaire was designed to obtain the participants’ attitudes and suggestions on the proposed team-teaching PBL approach after the study. The students were asked to respond to each statement on a five-point scale: from ―strongly disagree‖ (1) to ―strongly agree‖ (5). The student questionnaire is a direct reference to previous research (The Challenge 2000 PBL+MM Model, 2000). The questionnaire is divided into four dimensions, namely knowledge, engagement, report writing, and learning interest.
Among them, the knowledge dimension is to understand learners’ effectiveness to learn the subject courses. The engagement dimension is to understand the learner's preference for subject courses. The report writing dimension is to understand the learner's feel for the
Table 4.4 Student questionnaire and responses (phase II).
Questions
Geography class (n=89) English class (n=42) (Strongly)
1. Before this project, I knew very little about our
choice of topic. 42% 34% 24% 40% 26% 33%
2. From this project, I gained much knowledge about
our chosen topic. 88% 11% 1% 90% 7% 2%
3. I can learn more doing my own research as opposed
to learning through lectures in class. 52% 43% 5% 50% 48% 2%
9. I understand all the content in our final project
report. 85% 10% 5% 88% 12% 0%
Engagement:
4. During the project weeks, my in class participation is much better than other weeks of school.
51% 48% 1% 74% 21% 5%
5. If given the opportunity, I’d like to participate in project-based learning activities in the future.
52% 36% 12% 57% 36% 7%
10. Overall, I am satisfied with everything in our final project report.
73% 23% 4% 81% 14% 5%
11. Our final project report meets or exceeds all the criteria set forth by the teacher.
65% 31% 4% 81% 12% 7%
12. We did a good job on our oral presentation of the final project report.
75% 19% 6% 67% 29% 5%
project report writing. The learning interest dimension is the willingness of the learner to want to take the initiative to explore subject-related knowledge.
The questionnaire has four subscales: knowledge subscale, engagement subscale, report writing subscale, and satisfaction degree subscales. Knowledge subscale includes four items, engagement subscale includes two items, report writing subscale includes
three items and the satisfaction degree subscale includes three items, the total scale including 12 items.
Table 4.5 presents the student questionnaire and the cumulative statistical data on the students’ responses at the end of the three-year experiment. The data in the table represent cumulative responses from all students in the three experimental groups.
1. Comparison of PBL and Traditional Lectures (1) Phase II study
At the beginning of the experiment in phase II of the study, approximately one quarter of the students already knew something about the assigned topic (Question 1:
Geography 24%, English 33%). However, most students learned something new, regardless of their familiarity with the chosen topic (Question 2: Geography 88%, English 90%). When asked to compare learning through the research project with learning through in-class lectures, about half of the students favored the new PBL approach (Question 3: Geography 52%, English 50%) while most of the other half were indifferent (Question 3: Geography 43%, English 48%). Student participation was also higher during project work (Question 4: Geography 51%, English 74%). When asked about future PBL activities, over half of the students expressed interest in participating in future PBL activities (Question 5: Geography 52%, English 57%). Few students said they were uninterested in participating in future PBL activities (Question 5: Geography 12%, English 7%).
(2) Phase III study
At the beginning of the experiment in phase III of the study, a few students already knew something about the assigned topic (Question 1: Geography 9%, English 12%). The project topics were international affairs (in English) and geography projects (in Geography) in the third year. These project topic ranges were broader, so most students learned something new (Question 2: Geography 90%, English 91%).
Table 4.5. Student questionnaire and responses (phase III).
Questions
Geography class (n=88) English class (n=41) (Strongly)
1. Before this project, I knew very little about our
choice of topic. 71% 20% 9% 64% 24% 12%
2. From this project, I gained much knowledge about
our chosen topic. 90% 9% 1% 91% 7% 2%
3. I can learn more doing my own research as opposed to learning through lectures in class.
90% 9% 1% 91% 7% 2%
9. I understand all the content in our final project report.
90% 9% 1% 88% 9% 2%
Engagement:
4. During the project weeks, my in class participation is
much better than other weeks of school. 90% 8% 2% 91% 7% 2%
5. If given the opportunity, I’d like to participate in
project-based learning activities in the future. 90% 9% 1% 86% 12% 2%
10. Overall, I am satisfied with everything in our final project report.
83% 15% 2% 84% 12% 5%
11. Our final project report meets or exceeds all the criteria set forth by the teacher.
78% 18% 4% 86% 7% 7%
12. We did a good job on our oral presentation of the final project report.
87% 11% 2% 88% 9% 2%
When asked to compare learning through the research project with learning through in-class lectures, most students favored the new PBL approach more than the second year (Question 3: Geography 52%-->90%, English 50%-->91%) while fewer students were indifferent than in the second year (Question 3: Geography 1%, English 2%). Student
participation was also higher during project work (Question 4: Geography 51%-->90%, English 74%-->91%). When asked about future PBL activities, more students expressed interest in participating in future PBL activities (Question 5: Geography 52%-->90%, English 57%-->86%). Few students said they were uninterested in participating in future PBL activities (Question 5: Geography 1%, English 2%). Given the perceived learning through the process, the proposed approach for conducting structured PBL activities in a test-driven academic environment is not only feasible, it should be actively encouraged.
(3) Interview
In the interviews, students gave many encouraging comments regarding their learning. For example, the students considered that the PBL project helped their learning.
This finding is important if school principals are to encourage other subject teachers to adopt PBL in their teaching activities. Some of the comments included the following.
―Unlike sitting through lectures in class, I learned more when researching and
preparing the final report.”
―I think PBL is an effective means of learning geography. The teacher instructs on
the issues and the main concepts, and we learned the details through research work. It was a lot more fun to learn on our own. … ‖
―The textbook covers too much material; it’s difficult to learn it all. I learned
more from our group project.
2. Work Quality
(1) Phase II of the study
Generally, students felt good about the overall quality of their work. In particular, the students tended to be more confident about the content and organization of their final
reports than they were about the aesthetic aspects of the report (Question 6: Geography 58%, English 76%, and Question 7: Geography 65%, English 74%, as oppose to Question 8: Geography 49%, English 64%). However, fewer than 5% of the students thought they needed to improve in one or more of the three aspects. Most of the students understood everything that went into their final report (Question 9, Geography 85%; English 88%), which was an extremely gratifying finding. Most students were satisfied with their performance while only 4% thought otherwise (Question 10, Geography 73%; English 81%). Additionally, over half (Question 11, Geography 65%; English 81%) of the students indicated that they had done a better job than is required of them and less than 7% thought otherwise (Question 11, Geography 4%; English 7%). Students’ confidence in their own reports carried over to their final oral presentations (Question 12, Geography 75%; English 67%).
(2) Phase III of the study
The students tended to be more confident about the content and organization of their final reports than in the phase II study (Question 6: Geography 58%-->83%, English 76%-->81%, and Question 7: Geography 65%-->81%, English 74%-->81%, as opposed to Question 8: Geography 49%-->78%, English 64% 79%). Most of the students understood everything that went into their final reports (Question 9, Geography 85%-->90%; English 88%). More students were satisfied with their performance than in the phase II study (Question 10, Geography 73%-->83%; English 81%-->84%).
Additionally, more (Question 11, Geography 65%-->78%; English 81%-->86%) students indicated that they had done a better job. After three years of training, students show more confidence in their own reports carried over to their final oral presentations (Question 12, Geography 75%-->87%; English 67%--> 88%).
(3) Interview
Students attributed the success of their PBL projects to the training they had received in the preceding year. The training and experience gained from the computer class PBL helped the students do the work and this improved its quality.
Students’ comments included the following.