生產導向專題式學習:電腦教師支援協同教學方法之研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所博士論文指導教授：李忠謀博士. 生產導向專題式學習:電腦教師支援協同教學方法之研究 Production-oriented Project-based Learning: A Computer Teacher Supported Team-teaching Approach. 研究生：張凌倩撰中華民國102年8月.

(2) 摘要在升學主義導向的高中實施學科專題式學習主要受到授課時數及學科教師教學準備工作繁重的限制，因此往往無法實施或普及。本研究採準實驗法，藉由實際在國內高中電腦課程及其他學科(以地理、英文科為例)實施協同式專題學習，評估在升學主義導向的高中實施專題學習之可行性，透過一年級電腦課程的適當的專題活動設計與學習引導，使學生兼顧學科知識與操作技能的學習，並具備專題式學習能力，並於二年級和三年級的英文科及地理科進行專題式學習。從中了解教師之課前準備、教室管理、成績評量與知能成長情形，以及學生能否同時兼顧學科知識與21世紀技能的學習。本研究以文獻探討、師生訪談紀錄、問卷調查、教學實驗、課堂觀察及後測等方式蒐集所需資料，評估學生學習成效。經過三年的實驗研究，整理出可供國內電腦科教師及其他學科教師參考之建議實施方案。研究結果發現，將專題導向學習應用在高中課程後，學生對於這種教學方式的學習滿意度呈正向反應；而學習成效方面，學生經過專題導向學習之後在學習成效的表現有顯著進步；在實作方面，透過三位教師評分以及學生學習心得、訪談內容三方面綜合分析，大部分學生的作品有深度，而且能夠發揮團隊合作精神以及相關21世紀技能！關鍵詞：專題式學習、協同式教學、電腦科.

(3) ABSTRACT Project-based learning (PBL) is a highly effective teaching method that is dedicated to motivating students to learn independently. Project-based curriculum is student centered; PBL identify students’ knowledge deficits, generate appropriate learning issues, independently search for learning issues, critique the resources used for research, and apply the new knowledge to the project. PBL helps students in small groups engage in collaborative reflection on self-directed behaviors, thus improving such behaviors. However, training or encouraging teachers to practice PBL in their classrooms is challenging, especially when the educational system does not accommodate creative teaching practices. In particular, in a test-driven educational system, teachers’ limited teaching hours resulting from the overload of teaching materials makes it difficult for them to practice PBL at high school level. In light of this constraint, the present work presents a novel team-teaching model that is based on the collaboration between subject teachers and computer teacher to facilitate PBL in class. A three-year experiment was conducted to test the feasibility of the proposed model.. In the. experiment, the school computer teacher trains and conducts PBL with the 10th grade students in the first year, and subject teachers then follow up the practice of PBL in the second and the third year. The experimental results show that the proposed model is highly feasible. That is, while the subject teachers successfully carry out PBL activities, no instruction time was sacrificed. In addition,.

(4) a follow-up survey indicates that the participants enjoyed PBL activities in both computer and subject classes.. Keywords: Improving classroom teaching, Teaching/learning strategies, Secondary education, Project based learning, Team-teaching..

(5) 誌. 謝. 本論文得以順利完成，首先要感謝我的指導教授—李忠謀博士的悉心指導，在研究及撰寫論文期間給予我指導與鼓勵。從大學時代研究的啟迪；到碩士班、博士班研究過程的指導；一直給予我溫和開放的鼓勵與支持；在我躊躇徬徨的時候，給我支持，不孜不倦，在此獻上我最誠摯的感激。此外，也感謝五位口試委員--何榮桂教授、吳正己教授、許瑛玿教授、林美娟教授及陳伶志教授，於論文口試時針對論文之缺失給予的建議及指正，並且提供相當寶貴的意見，使本論文得以更加完整，在此表達最高之謝意。謝謝新店高中給予我在職進修的機會，並於行政上給予支持；同事及學生的鼓勵打氣，都讓我更有動力。感謝明男、德清、桂華、范主任、瓊芳學姊、逸君、承嘉、巧莉的諸多關心及照顧。謝謝我最愛而且也最愛我的爸爸、媽媽、公公、婆婆、哥哥、嫂嫂、弟弟、弟媳、大伯、大嫂、大姑，你們一直在背後默默的支持及鼓勵，給予我最大的包容及關心，這一個強力後盾是我最豐厚的資產。特別感謝老公昭成的協助及關心，除了是我精神上的支持之外，並給予我關愛及照顧，您為我所作的事，點滴在心，謝謝！在成長的歷程當中，常感身旁很多人不斷的協助及扶持，論文付梓的喜悅，我想跟所有愛護我、照顧我、支持我的家人、師長及朋友一起分享，謝謝您們。.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... III LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................... IV CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................1 1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY...............................................................................................................................5 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .........................................................................................................................6 1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS..........................................................................................................................6. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.......................... 9 2.1 PROJECT BASED LEARNING (PBL) ......................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Overview of Project-Based Learning (PBL) .................................................................................9 2.1.2 Theoretical Bases of Project-Based Learning ............................................................................11 2.1.3 Project-Based Learning and Technology....................................................................................16 2.1.4 Practicing PBL in a test-driven educational setting ...................................................................22 2.2 TEAM-TEACHING ................................................................................................................................26. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................... 31 3.1 PROPOSED TEAM-TEACHING APPROACH............................................................................................31 3.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN .....................................................................................................................34 3.2.1 Subjects ........................................................................................................................................34 3.2.2 Procedure .....................................................................................................................................36 3.2.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................40. CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................ 43 4.1 ANALYSIS OF THE ACHIEVEMENT TEST.............................................................................................43 4.1.1 Phase II study ..............................................................................................................................43 4.1.1 Phase III study .............................................................................................................................44 4.2 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE ON PBL ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................47 4.2.1 Student Questionnaire on PBL Activities in phase I ..................................................................47 4.2.2 Student Questionnaire on PBL Activities in phase II and III ....................................................51 4.3 TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ..................................................................................................................57 4.3.1 Computer Teacher’s Observations and Afterthoughts of the Project in phase I study .............57 4.3.2 Computer and Subject Teacher’s Observations in phase II and III study ................................62 i.

(7) 4.4 DISCUSSIONS .......................................................................................................................................65. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS ...................... 68 5.1 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................68 5.2 FUTURE WORKS...................................................................................................................................71. REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 72 APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 89 APPENDIX A PHASE II ENGLISH ACIEVEMENT TEST ................................................................................90 APPENDIX B PHASE II GEOGRAPHY ACIEVEMENT TEST ...........................................................................96 APPENDIX C PHASE III ENGLISH ACIEVEMENT TEST..............................................................................100 APPENDIX D PHASE III GEOGRAPHY ACIEVEMENT TEST .......................................................................105 APPENDIX E STUDENT PROGRESS AND WEEKLY PROJECT REPORTS ....................................................109 APPENDIX F WEBSITE ASSESSMENT FORM ...........................................................................................121. ii.

(8) List of Tables Table 3.1 Number of students in the control and experimental groups in phase II study and phase III study………….……….……...……….……….……….………35 Table 3.2 Timetable and in class activities in the study…………………………….…..37 Table 3.3 Project Assessments Method…………………………….…………..……….40 Table 4.1 Compares the results for both the geography and the English classes (phase II study)…………………………..……………………………………44 Table 4.2 Compares the results for both the geography and the English classes (phase III study)………………………………………………………………46 Table 4.3 Student questionnaire and cumulative results over all 16 classes in phase I. (N=741) ……………………………………………………………………….48 Table 4.4 Student questionnaire and responses (phase II study)……………………….52 Table 4.5 Student questionnaire and responses (phase III study)………………………54. iii.

(9) List of Figures Figure 2.1 a cognitive theory of multimedia learning………….……………………..…21 Figure 3.1 Proposed Team Teaching Approach ………………….…………………..…32 Figure 3.2 Experiment Procedure………………………………………………….…….33. iv.

(10) Chapter I Introduction 1.1 Introduction Rapid technological and social developments put high demands on individuals. Individuals are required to garner new knowledge all the time, to collaborate with colleagues at work, and to apply their knowledge to solve everyday problems. Despite the fact that the whole world is changing at a rapid pace, education systems, unfortunately, have not been able to catch up. Therefore, the high demands of the world impose necessary pressure on educational systems to improve to be more effective. Educational systems have received many criticisms in the past. One of the often raised concerns is the fact that most schools teach students to be passive knowledge seekers. In the current school model with teachers being the givers of information and textbooks being the primary course structure guide (Uden & Beaumon, 2006), individual learning and performance are not emphasized and students are judged on unassisted performances on assignments and tests (Kozma & Schank, 1998). In addition, information is spread out by subjects and grade levels, resulting in fragmented pieces of knowledge (Uden & Beaumon, 2006). Also, subject knowledge is often taught outside of the context of real-world use. Therefore, students are instructed on the knowledge that is neither relevant nor linked to their previous knowledge. As a result, students are unable to make the connection between school learning and how it will serve them later in life (Kozma & Schank, 1988; Ward & Lee, 2002). Though students gain knowledge in school, they do not know what this knowledge is for or how to use it. They also lack the necessary skills to help them decide where and how to find and use resources. This has resulted in students’ passive learning and always waiting for someone to help them. Moreover, they learn superficially, lack motivation, and most. 1.

(11) importantly are unable to adapt themselves to rapid changes of the society in terms of both knowledge and skills with respect to the above worrisome drawbacks. There is a common concern among parents, educators, business leaders, and politicians that students are not being educated in a manner that allows them to make connections between their knowledge and the real world and that school reform is no doubt an urgent need to prepare students to meet the requirements of the 21st century (Kozma & Schank, 1998; Ward & Lee, 2002; Samuel, Tse, & Ken, 2011). In other words, to guarantee success in the workplace, students must be able to understand and incorporate new ideas, adapt to change, cope with uncertainty, and use higher order thinking skills to address conventional issues. The effectiveness of the conventional models of pedagogy has been a focus of research over the years (Chai & Tan, 2009; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Solomon, 2003). Passive learning by students has motivated educators to continually seek innovative ways to motivate students and improve learning outcomes (Finn, 1991; Hafner & Ellis, 2004; Lewis, Alacaci, & O’Brien, 2002; Marina, 2009). For this reason, educators are now looking for new applications that develop such abilities to meet the demands of the changing world. Among them, educators have looked at constructivist pedagogical designs that are based on cognitive and social interactions in project-centered environments (Belland, et al., 2006; Brush & Saye, 2008; John F. & Rebecca T. 2013). Project-based learning goes beyond generating student interest. Well-designed projects encourage active inquiry and higher-level thinking (Thomas, 1998). Project-based learning offers a wide range of benefits to both students and teachers. A growing body of academic research supports the use of project-based learning in school to engage students, cut absenteeism, boost cooperative learning skills, and improve academic performance (George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2001). Project-based learning (PBL) was introduced in the early twentieth century to 2.

(12) motivate students’ self-directed learning (Kilpatrick, 1918). It involves creating an environment in which individuals actively participate in the learning process, take responsibility for their own learning, become better learners in terms of time management skills, fostering the ability to identify learning topics, the ability to find resources and the ability to evaluate the validity of these resources. To nurture these abilities, the PBL method calls for learners to acquire and develop core learning concepts through doing collaborative projects that require the learning and the application of contextual knowledge. Literature has already shown that PBL is able to turn students into interactive learners (Blumentfeld et al., 1991; Lin & Hsieh, 2001; Synteta & Schneider, 2002) and to construct knowledge through exploration (Edward, 1995; Jang, 2006a; Johnson & Aragon, 2003; Prince & Felder, 2007). Recent studies also explore the feasibility of integrating PBL and technology. PBL has proven particularly effective when combined with computer technology (Barron et al., 1998; Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999; Solomon, 2003; Stites, 1998). Given the growing pervasiveness of the Internet, such technology is now a major tool in PBL (Land & Greene, 2000). The use of technology to facilitate PBL implementation can be categorized. as. technology-supported. PBL. and. production-oriented. PBL.. In. technology-supported PBL, the technologies are often used as communication tools (Hafner & Ellis, 2004), research tools (Land & Greene, 2000), scaffolding tools (Synteta & Schneider, 2002, Intel TwT, 2011), project management tools (Denis et al., 2005; Rooij, 2009), and telecollaboration tools (Harris, 1998; Anderson, 2002). In production-oriented PBL, however, technologies are often used as production tools that enable students to organize and present their research work through multimedia. Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988, 1994; Penney, 1989) and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 1997) indicate that when learners process multimedia data. 3.

(13) simultaneously, they integrate numerous types of information and form mental models based on their understanding of the learning material. Production-oriented PBL thus offers students opportunities to simulate authentic learning and to increase their knowledge and self-efficacy in the subject matter. However, some possible barriers to production-oriented PBL projects include such technical difficulties as software, hardware, and networks, as well as time constraints, and the need for teacher training in particular (Steelman, 2005). Some factors are found to be contributing to teachers’ difficulty in implementing PBL projects in class (Hew & Brush, 2007; Demirci, 2009). For example, a lack of prompt technical support may cause anxiety for teachers. Teachers must also customize instruction to prevailing knowledge levels and learning goals (Seo et al., 2008). An even greater challenge for a subject teacher is to address the technical needs of students who may have varying proficiency and interest in the use of computers. Therefore, an important challenge for educators and policymakers is to train teachers not only in PBL pedagogy but also in the technology needed to implement PBL successfully in the classroom (Barab & Luehmann, 2002; Barak & Dori, 2004; Hickey et al., 2010). In addition to the technical issues, there are also contextual issues that hinder the practice of PBL in class. In many Asian countries, Taiwan in particular, the educational environment is still very much test-driven. The National Subject-Competency Test (NSCT) score is still the major indicator of students’ academic achievement and is the predominant factor in determining which college or university high school graduates may attend. Thus, changing the pedagogical practices of subject teachers is extremely difficult. Any alternative teaching methods that do not sound ―robust‖ to the public’s ear are expected to bring about strong parental objections. Therefore, even if a subject teacher is willing to try new teaching practices and to learn the necessary technology, teaching students in this alternative approach with novel teaching aids are still a daunting task. 4.

(14) In the light of the aforementioned difficulties, we have been experimenting with disparate ways for high school subject teachers to practice PBL in their classrooms, in which team-teaching is proved to be a feasible way to overcome both the technical and contextual problems mentioned above. Team-teaching is one variation of co-teaching (Cook & Friend, 1996), which involves two or more teachers sharing teaching expertise in the classroom and engaging in reflective dialogue with each other (Eick & Dias, 2005; Jang, 2006b; Sandholtz, 2000; Welch & Sheridan, 1995). Team-teaching offers several advantages over the traditional single-teacher teaching method, including the provision of multiple learning perspectives (Smith, Hornsby, & Kite, 2000), reduction of teaching redundancy (Hartenian, Schellenger, & Frederickson, 2001), and the promotion of teamwork and communication between teachers (Andrews & Wooten, 2005). In this study, we propose a team-teaching strategy that involves collaboration between the computer teacher and subject teachers to implement PBL in class. A quasi-experimental study with a mixed-method design was conducted to facilitate students’ interest and confidence in learning subjects as well as the development of proper learning achievement. The rest of this thesis presents the team-teaching PBL approach, experimental setup, research findings, discussion of implications and conclusions.. 1.2 Purpose of Study This study proposes a team-teaching strategy that calls for the collaboration between subject teachers and the computer teacher to enable PBL in the classroom. A three-year experiment was carried out to test the feasibility of the proposed approach. The primary purpose of this study is to provide an in-depth examination of the learner. 5.

(15) experience and of the PBL application in computer, English, and geography classes. The study also makes an attempt to plot out various challenges.. 1.3 Research Questions The research questions in the study are: 1. Is the proposed team-teaching PBL approach feasible and effective under the current test-driven educational environment? 1-1 Is academic achievement impacted as a result of using the proposed team-teaching PBL approach? 1-2 Are participating students benefit from the proposed team-teaching PBL approach? 1-3 What are the teacher and student responses to the proposed team-teaching PBL approach in the study? 2. Do the participants of the study, both the teachers and the students, embrace PBL in terms of continuing participation in future classes?. 1.4 Definition of Terms The following definitions are used throughout this thesis. The common definitions from the list are given. Collaboration: Working together in pairs, small teams, or classes to accomplish a common intellectual purpose in a manner superior to what might have been accomplished working alone. The goal in project-based learning is for each student involved to make a separate contribution to the final multimedia product. 6.

(16) and for the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts (Simkins, Cole, Tavalin, & Means, 2002). Facilitator. Somebody who enables something or a process to happen, especially somebody who encourages people to find their own solutions to tasks (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard, 2006). Focus group: A form of qualitative research where a small number of participants, usually four to six, informally discuss a particular topic under the guidance of a moderator. Participants share certain characteristics that can include similar social or demographic attributes and some relationship to the topic under review (Goldenkoff, 2004). Project-based Learning: a process that emphasizes student interest rather than following a fixed curriculum; a broad focus rather than a narrow, discipline-based focus; direct, primary, or original sources rather than texts, lectures, and secondary sources; and data and materials developed by students rather than teachers (Newell,. 2003).. For. teachers,. project-based. learning. means. reducing. compartmentalized learning by integrating different subject areas. For students, project-based learning aims to promote the ability to generalize knowledge to alternative settings outside of the school. Self-directed Learning: Students’ ability to take controls their learning that helps them at acquiring information or skill. Self-Regulated Learning: Learning that is the result of conscious behaviors of students directed toward achieving learning objectives. Team-teaching: Team-teaching can be defined as a group of two or more teachers working together to plan, conduct, and evaluate the learning activities for the same group of learners. Quinn and Kanter (1984) define team-teaching as "simply team. 7.

(17) work between two qualified instructors who, together, make presentations to an audience.". 8.

(18) Chapter 2 Review of Related Literature This chapter looks at the theoretical framework, effects, and elements of project-based learning and team-teaching. The review explores the elements associated with the implementation of the proposed team-teaching PBL approach.. 2.1 Project Based Learning (PBL) 2.1.1 Overview of Project-Based Learning (PBL) Project-based learning (PBL) is an instructional strategy that allows students the autonomy to learn, explore, and investigate throughout the learning process by encouraging them to do projects. Many educators have seen the need for such a strategy in the classroom as a boost to motivate students, to show relevance of student’s education to everyday life, and to prepare students for college and the work force, It meets students’ dire need to develop higher order thinking skills to attain future success. As an instructional method, project-based learning is student-centered learning pedagogy (Foulger & Jimenez-Silva, 2007), focusing on an in-depth exploration of a topic rather than following a hard and fast lesson plan (Harris & Katz, 2001). Project-based learning gives students a greater degree of control over what they learn, the purpose of which is to sustain students’ interest and to motivate them to take responsibility for their own learning. Learners can ―shape their projects to fit their own interests and abilities‖ (Moursund, 2003), and PBL encourages the development of the collaborative, interpersonal, and communication skills highly valued in today's workplace. Learners demonstrate skills and knowledge with a personally meaningful artifact, such as a work of computer graphic design, a multimedia presentation, a science project, a computer code or simulation, the design of an experiment to analyze or interpret data that fits their discipline (Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai & Resnick, 1996, Prince & Felder, 2007). 9.

(19) Normally, projects last over time and serve as interactive instruments to assist students in acquiring new, essential knowledge and skills. The old-school model of passively learning facts and reciting them out of context is no longer sufficient to prepare students to survive in today's world. Solving highly complex problems requires that students have both fundamental skills (reading, writing, and math) and 21st century skills (teamwork, problem solving, research gathering, time management, information synthesizing, using high tech tools). With this combination of skills, students become directors and managers of their learning process, while being guided and mentored by a skilled teacher. For many students, the appeal of this learning style comes from the authenticity of the experience. PBL is not just a way of learning; it's a way of working together. If students learn to take responsibility for their own learning, they will form the basis for the way they will work with others in their adult lives. For students, the benefits of project-based learning include: . Increased attendance, growth in self-reliance, and improved attitudes toward learning (Thomas, 2000).. . Academic gains equal to or better than those generated by other models, with students involved in projects taking greater responsibility for their own learning than during more traditional classroom activities (Boaler, 1997; SRI, 2000 ).. . Opportunities to develop complex skills, such as higher-order thinking, problem-solving, collaborating, and communicating (SRI, 2000).. . Access to a broader range of learning opportunities in the classroom, providing a strategy for engaging culturally-diverse learners (Railsback, 2002).. . PBL helps students develop skills for living in a knowledge-based, highly 10.

(20) technological society. And for teachers, additional benefits include: . Enhanced professionalism and collaboration among colleagues, and opportunities to build relationships with students (Thomas, 2000). Additionally, many teachers are pleased to find an approach that accommodates diverse learners by introducing a wider range of learning opportunities into the classroom. Teachers find that students who benefit the most from project-based learning tend to be those for whom traditional instructional methods and approaches are not effective (SRI, 2000).. . PBL and technology use bring a new relevance to the learning at hand. Teachers can communicate with administrators, exchange ideas with other teachers and subject-area experts, and communicate with parents, all while breaking down invisible barriers such as isolation of the classroom, fear of embarking on an unfamiliar process, and the lack of assurances of success.. 2.1.2 Theoretical Bases of Project-Based Learning Project-based learning is a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks (Markham, Larner, & Ravitz, 2003, p. 7). When students are given the opportunity to do this, proponents of these approaches argue earnestly that students become motivated by their desires to fulfill their needs. In making connections and creating relevancy for students, teachers are able to motivate students (Prensky, 2000). Project-based learning reflects the theoretical perspectives including cognitive science and the theories of Dewey, Bruner, and Piaget (Schmidt, 1983, 1993; Norman & 11.

(21) Schmidt, 1992). Within the cognitive science domain, project-based learning reflects a rationalist (information processing) view of learning (Schmidt, 1983, 1993; Norman & Schmidt, 1992; Albanese & Mitchell, 1993) and a constructivist view of learning (Savery & Duffy, 1995). For over a century, educators such as John Dewey have espoused the benefits of experiential, student-directed leaning opportunities (Buck Institute for Education [BIE], 2003, 2009). Dewey’s ideas were a precursor to the theory of constructivism, which emphasized the importance of allowing individuals to construct knowledge through interactions with the environment (Woolfolk, 2004). Dewey’s theories also reflects constructivism and rationalism. According to the rationalist perspective of learning, individuals acquire knowledge through their own cognitive process. Dewey (1929) believed that learning is an individual event; therefore, knowledge needs to be mastered by the learner, not just transferred through somebody from outside. In order to construct a knowledge base an individual must actively participate in cognitive processes. The theories of Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1978) and neo-Marxist theories (Lave & Wenger, 1991) have become popular, under the label of social constructivism. Vygotsky focused on the social and cultural contexts that influence learning, pinpointing that the interaction with people – other children, parents, and teachers – is an essential component of cognitive development. Both Dewey and Vygostky’s views of constructivism agree that learning is a building process, constantly interpreted and reinterpreted by the interaction with the world around us. The constructivist viewpoint is diametrically opposed to the definition of learning espoused in the traditional educational behaviorist theory, which states that learning is a series of static, disconnected stages learned through repetition and reinforcement. Some educators praise the efficiency of traditional education teaching methods, arguing that teachers can expose a large number of students to a vast amount of information in a very 12.

(22) short period of time. Unfortunately, this viewpoint fails to address the question of whether students can understand, retain, and apply this information to future study and work. Mere repetition of information, the benchmark of success in a traditional class, does not indicate true learning or understanding; in fact, it simply proves the ability to parrot information (Marlowe & Page, 1998). In short, constructivism as a philosophical view on how we come to understand or know, holds that any so-called reality is the mental construction of those who believe they have discovered and investigated it. Such a view is characterized in terms of three primary propositions: Knowledge is in our interactions with environment; Cognitive conflict is the stimulus for learning; Understanding is influenced through the social negotiation of meanings (Savery & Duffy, 1995). From these three propositions, a set of instructional principles is derived to guide the practice of teaching and the design of a learning environment. These principles anchor all learning activities to a larger task or project, support learners in developing ownership for the overall project or task, design an project, give learners ownership of the process used to develop a solution, design the learning environment to support and challenge the learners’ thinking, and encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts to provide the opportunity for and support reflection on what is learned and on the learning activity (Savery and Duffy, 1995). Bruner proposed that the knowledge is organized with respect to interest of an individual and this cognitive structuring makes that knowledge much more easily accessible from the individual’s memory as cited in Slavin, 1994. From an information processing approach to learning acquiring new information basically depends on three principles: activation of prior knowledge, encoding specificity, and elaboration of knowledge.. 13.

(23) Prior knowledge that a student has affects structuring the upcoming information. As Schmidt (1993) pointed out, ―learning by its nature has a restructuring character.‖ Prior knowledge and its structure in the long-term memory will determine what is understood from new information and this in turn will define what is learned from it (Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977). Therefore, it is very important to activate prior knowledge that is related to new learning material, so that better learning results will be achieved. ―As a result, the amount of prior knowledge available determines to what extent something new can be learned‖ (Schmidt, 1993). Mayer and Greeno (1972) claimed that instructional methods varied with respect to their ability to activate necessary prior knowledge. Mayer (1982) pointed out that instructional methods would be successful in students’ processing of new information to the degree that they activate students’ prior knowledge. Small group discussions in project-based learning are a way to facilitate prior knowledge. Thinking and discussing is believed to activate prior knowledge, which leads to increases in the understanding of new information. Elaboration of knowledge is another principle that affects accessing new knowledge. Anderson and Reder (1979) found that information is better comprehended, processed, and retrieved if students elaborate on that information. In the elaboration process the learner creates the relationships between two concepts. As a result of elaboration, multiple redundant retrieval paths are created in knowledge networks in the brain, which in turn promotes the retrieval of a concept from memory and increases the chance of retrieving required and necessary information. Schmidt (1983) stated that there are many ways that a student can elaborate on information such as by taking notes, discussing the subject matter with other students, teaching peers, and writing summaries. In a simple and clear way, constructivism can be defined as students’ construction of knowledge based on their own understanding of the learning experiences. Savery and Duffy (1995) defined constructivism as continual knowledge acquisition, constructing 14.

(24) and renovating it as result of an experience. From that perspective it is also claimed that learning is a restructuring of existing knowledge, which indicates the adjusting ability of learners. Therefore, the meaning of teaching is not simply telling to students and learning is a continuous process according to constructivist perspective. Moreover, Shuell (1996) defined constructivism: ―the learner does not merely record or remember the material to be learned. Rather he or she constructs a unique mental representation of the material to be learned and the task to be performed, selects information perceived to be relevant, and interprets that information on the basis of his or her existing knowledge and existing needs. In the process, the learner adds information not explicitly provided by the teacher whenever such information is needed to make sense of the material being studied. This process is an active one in which the learner must carry out various operations on the new materials in order for it to be acquired in a meaningful manner.‖ This definition stresses the importance of two words related with learners; first they are active in the learning process and second they make a meaning from that knowledge. The constructivist view rejects the idea that students are passive in the learning process. Also the definition of constructivism indicates one aspect of knowledge: knowledge is subjective and unique for each individual, because no two individuals have the same experiences. Over the last decade, scholars have tried to refine the project method to address these past problems with the approach and to incorporate new knowledge about learning. The Buck Institute for Education defines project-based learning as ―a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning essential knowledge and life-enhancing skills through an extended, student-influenced inquiry process structured around carefully designed products and tasks‖ (The Buck Institute for Education and Boise State University 2005). Recent versions of the approach brought about a series of constructivist-based features designed to support learning and instruction: 15.

(25)  Student centered instruction, student inquiry, and extensive investigation.  Collaboration, cooperative learning, and meaningful collaboration between the teacher and students.  Teacher as facilitator.  Use of technology and other resources to aid students in illustrating their ideas.  Formative assessment.  Reflection.  The production of artifacts (creation of a product that represents their gained knowledge) (Barron et al., 1998; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Edelson et al., 1999; The Buck Institute for Education and Boise State University 2005). The above framework gives students the opportunity to master concepts by reflecting on what they’ve previously learned and getting meaningful feedback not only from teachers, but peers as well. Project-based learning allows students to be active participants in the learning process and to take ownership of their learning. In particular, the constructivist-based features of formative assessment and reflection are designed to call attention to and enhance students’ knowledge of the learning process by requiring students to take responsibility for their own learning (Solomon, 2003). The teacher acts as a facilitator throughout the process, guiding and advising student work. Students have the opportunity to demonstrate their newly acquired knowledge based on how much and how well they have learned (Solomon, 2003).. 2.1.3 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 16.

(26) 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 17.

(27) 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 18.

(28) 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).. 19.

(29) 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). 20.

(30) 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 21.

(31) 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.. 2.1.4 Practicing PBL in a test-driven educational setting In many Asian countries, Taiwan in particular, the educational environment is still very much test-driven. The National Subject-Competency Test (NSCT) score is still the 22.

(32) major indicator of students’ academic achievement and is the predominant factor in determining which college or university high school graduates may attend. Thus, changing the pedagogical practices of subject teachers is extremely difficult. For students accustomed to a more traditional school experience, this means a transformation from following orders to carrying out self-directed learning activities, from memorizing and repeating to discovering, integrating, and presenting; from listening and reacting to communicating and taking responsibility; from knowledge of facts, terms, and content to understanding processes; from theory to the application of theory; from being teacher dependent to being empowered. A project-based learning approach is student-centered with student inquiry and exploration as key elements. Learners have the opportunity to work more autonomously and build their knowledge (Schneider 2005). In PBL, students completed contextualized tasks as opposed to isolated lessons. Learning from projects rather than from isolated content is, in part, so that students can face the task of formulating their own projects, guided on the one hand by the general goals they set, and on the other hand by the ―interesting‖ phenomena and difficulties they discover through their interaction with the environment (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989). Project-based approach is an engaging way to teach required standards. The content standards are indeed taught, but they are joined with other content and skills to make a meaningful, rigorous, and interesting learning experience. With traditional teaching methods, it is very difficult for students to engage in the learning process. In project-based learning, students can become self-motivated learners through creating products ―valuable in their own right‖ and collaborating with other students (Evertson et al., 2006). Through projects, students can not only learn concepts, they are provoked and encouraged to develop new knowledge. It’s not that the previous could not happen in a 23.

(33) traditional lecture/note-taking classroom setting, but PBL is designed around student-centeredness to allow each individual student to. build (learn) on previous. knowledge, from any level, and develop new knowledge. In PBL, the teacher is not the only contributor to the learning that occurs in the classroom. PBL gives students the right amount of choice and autonomy. The teacher’s role is as a guide and facilitator. The teacher creates the project and many scaffolding activities, but the students do the exploration and discovery. The teacher’s role is not just to be a transmitter of knowledge, rather an advisor of learning (Newell, 2003). Classroom teaching is not effective where teachers are knowledge providers and students are passive takers. The one-way transmission approach cannot meet diverse learner styles and the expansion of knowledge in our world. Some possible barriers to production-oriented PBL projects include technical difficulties with software, hardware and networks, as well as time constraints, and the need for teacher training (Steelman, 2005). Marx (1997) stated teachers have difficulty incorporating technology into the classroom, especially as a cognitive tool. In order to cultivate PBL, teachers should be prepared to integrate technology into their PBL teaching and learning practices (Barab & Luehmann, 2002; Barak & Dori, 2004). Relatively few teachers are willing to integrate ICT into their teaching activities (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008; Ertmer, 2005). Many authors attribute the lack of technology integration to post-teacher education barriers to technology integration in PBL (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Hew & Brush, 2007; Demirci, 2009). The major categories of barriers that were identified and intended to be tackled include: Lack of teacher confidence (Bosley & Moon, 2003, Bradley & Russell, 1997). Resistant to change and negative attitude (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Ertmer, 1999; Mumtaz, 2000; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001). No perceived benefits (Mumtaz, 2000; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001; Yuen & Ma, 24.

(34) 2002). Lack of time (Cuban et al., 2001; Ebersole & Vorndam, 2002; Fabry and Higgs, 1997; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001). Lack of training (Preston et al., 2000; Wild, 1996). Lack of access to computing resources (Bosley & Moon, 2003; Fabry & Higgs, 1997; Mumtaz, 2000; Preston et al., 2000). Lack of institutional support (Butler & Sellbom, 2002; Cuban, 1999; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001). Such authors contend that barriers in the form of lack of resources, knowledge and skills, available technology, time, technical and administrative support (Wepner, Ziomek, & Tao, 2003) and lack of will due to incompatible beliefs about technology and teaching prevent the integration of technology by in-service teachers (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007). Technology was best learned in the context that teachers should learn technology through the integration of technology into their course work and field experiences (Handler, 1993). One key to improve teachers’ preparation for technology integration is to embed technology within courses, and to provide targeted technical specialized courses (Angeli, 2005; Davis & Falba, 2002). However, recent calls for educational reform in teacher education stress the need for innovative teacher education restructuring to ensure that teachers not only know how to apply technology but also how to design high quality technology-enhanced lessons (Angeli, 2005; Dawson et al., 2003; Thompson, Schmidt, & Davis, 2003). Teachers need to see good technology practices modeled by themselves who are given the opportunities to practice with the technology, and reflect on their use of technologies in order to plan curricula and instruction in the classroom (Doering et al., 2003). For an effective learning environment, the teachers required more guidance, 25.

(35) showing more specimen projects and more check points during the process. Evaluating challenges and suggestions together, it can be considered that they need more guidance to cope with time management and anxiety. Acquiring the technology skills necessary to transform a teacher from novice to expert requires the involvement of an experienced teacher who can help bridge the gap between theory and practice. Working alongside experienced teachers allows the teacher to observe, listen, and participate in activities (Eraut, 2007; Harrison, Lawson, & Wortley, 2005). Team-teaching is a potential solution to this problem. The team-teaching approach supports guidance, arising teachers’ motivation to succeed, and learning how to implement PBL.. 2.2 Team-teaching Team-teaching is one variation of co-teaching (Cook & Friend, 1996). Co-teaching (Cook & Friend, 1996; Walther-Thomas, Brtant, & Land, 1996) is identified by a classroom with two or more teachers who share lesson planning, team-teaching practices, and evaluating responsibilities. Cook and Friend (1996) also described five variations of coteaching: one teaching/one assisting, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team-teaching. Co-teaching offers several important advantages for teachers, including increased support, the opportunity for on-going discussions about teaching, and experiences in learning how to collaborate to enhance technology competence in teaching and in practice (Bullough, Young, Birrell, & Clark, 2003; Jang, 2008; Eick & Dias, 2005). Co-teaching is also socially constructivist in nature, through social interactions in a community of practice (Jang, 2006a). Knowledge is collaboratively constructed between individuals, whence it can be appropriated by each individual (Vygotsky, 1978). 26.

(36) Team-teaching (Sandholtz, 2000; Welch & Sheridan, 1995) involves two or more teachers who share teaching experiences in the classroom, and having reflective dialoguing with each other (Jang, 2006b; Eick & Dias, 2005). Teachers together set goals for a course, design a syllabus, prepare individual lesson plans, teach students, and evaluate the results. They share insights, argue with one another, and perhaps even challenge students to decide which approach is better. Teams can be single-discipline, interdisciplinary, or school-within-a-school teams that meet with a common set of students over an extended period of time. New teachers may be paired with veteran teachers. Innovations are encouraged, and modifications in class size, location, and time are permitted. Different personalities, voices, values, and approaches spark interest, keep attention, and prevent boredom. The team teaching approach provides opportunities for teachers to work as a team, to exchange their knowledge and teaching experiences, and to retain their course domains (Jang, 2002). Team teaching gives teachers the opportunities to act on their ideas and reflect in and on their actions. Additionally, team teaching is increasingly identified as a key facilitator of a teacher’s professional growth (Jang, 2002; Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1993).. From the perspective of activity, team-teaching provides teachers with a zone of proximal development, the interaction between them, and a new form of societal activity (Wertsch, 1984). The central purpose of dialoguing is to further develop the existing understanding of the teaching situation in order to enhance professional growth (Eick & Dias, 2005; Roth, Tobin, Zimmermann, Bryant, & Davis, 2002; Tobin, Roth, & Zimmermann, 2001). Communities of practice in team-teaching consist of practitioners at various levels of competence who identify with the shared practice of teaching (Wenger et al., 2002). This identity grows in practice through peripheral participation and increasing self-confidence and success in implementing their chosen practices (Eick, 27.

(37) Ware, & Williams, 2003; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993). As technical competence grows, they begin to demonstrate the professional knowledge for teaching that can only be learned in the context of authentic practice. Since team teachers teach together, interactions occur continually. Team teachers continually create material and social resources that allow for new forms of agency at subsequent moments. Such resources include physical as well as social spaces and meaning-making entities. Team teachers take advantage of these resources in synchronized and coordinated ways (Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2005).. The benefits of team-teaching are that it offers multiple viewpoints for learning (Smith, Hornsby, & Kite, 2000), reduces redundancies (Hartenian, Schellenger, & Frederickson, 2001), builds teamwork and communication (Andrews & Wooten, 2005), offers multiple styles (Helms et al, 2005), and creates interdisciplinary scholarship (Booth et al., 2003). Working as a team, teachers model respect for differences, interdependence, and conflict-resolution skills. Team members together set the course goals and content, select common materials such as texts and films, and develop tests and final examinations for all students. They set the sequence of topics and supplemental materials. They also give their own interpretations of the materials and use their own teaching styles. The greater the agreement on common objectives and interests, the more likely that teaching will be interdependent and coordinated.. Teamwork improves the quality of teaching as various experts approach the same topic from different angles: theory and practice, past and present, different genders or ethnic backgrounds. Teacher strengths are combined and weaknesses are remedied. Poor teachers can be observed, critiqued, and improved by the other team members in a non-threatening, supportive context. The evaluation done by a team of teachers will be more insightful and balanced than the introspection and self-evaluation of an individual 28.

(38) teacher. Working in teams spreads responsibility, encourages creativity, deepens friendships, and builds community among teachers. Teachers complement one another. They share insights, propose new approaches, and challenge assumptions. They learn new perspectives and insights, and techniques and values from watching one another. The presence of another teacher reduces student-teacher personality problems. In an emergency, one team member can attend to the problem while the class goes on. Sharing in decision-making bolsters self-confidence. As teachers see the quality of teaching and learning improve, their self-esteem and happiness grow.. The negative consequences of team-teaching are content, relationship, identity, and process differences when interdependency sparks tension. Some teachers are rigid personality types or may be wedded to a single method. Some simply dislike the other teachers on the team. Some do not want to risk humiliation and discouragement at possible failures. Others are unwilling to share the spotlight or their pet ideas or to lose total control. Careful listening to team members’ perspectives is certainly a starting point for resolving conflict (Shapiro & Dempsey, 2008).. Although project-based learning is regarded highly as an effective educational innovation in this time of education reform, it is not readily accepted by all teachers in Taiwan. Although student-centered approaches are officially recommended, most teachers still employ teacher-led approaches in their teaching (Tse, Lam, Lam, & Loh, 2005, Saye & Brush, 2004). While the benefits of project-based learning for students remain to be seen, few would argue that a key factor contributing to its successful implementation in the local setting hinges on teacher motivation. Project-based learning will have a better chance to bring about the desired benefits for students if teachers have a strong motivation to experiment with, and improve it in the classroom. Abrami et al. (2004) point out that an educational innovation often meets with a wide range of teacher 29.

(39) receptivity. Some teachers may apply the innovation with great enthusiasm and persistence until it becomes fully integrated into their teaching. However, some may never try the new teaching strategy or may return to their old teaching practice after only a few initial attempts. Lam, Yim and Lam (2002) also indicated that genuine collaboration among teachers in peer coaching could relieve teachers from psychological pressure because they had a sense of collective responsibility and shared ownership of the lesson. So we propose a team-teaching strategy that involves collaboration between the computer teacher and subject teachers to implement PBL in class (Chang & Lee, 2010).. 30.

(40) Chapter 3 Research Methodology In this chapter, the overall design of the present study will be reported. The organization of this chapter is as follows. Section 3.1 presents the proposed team teaching approach. Section 3.2 presents the experiment design of the proposed team teaching approach. Section 3.2.1 describes the subjects. The procedure of the present investigation is addressed in Section 3.2.2. The data collection is reported in section 3.2.3.. 3.1 Proposed team-teaching approach In Taiwan, computer courses are typically taught during the first year of high school (10th grade). Typically, computer teachers teach introductory computer science concepts as well as practical software tools. However, NSCT subject teachers must follow rigid rules regarding teaching content and progress. Therefore, most subject teachers are unwilling to deviate from their usual teaching routine and to experiment with new teaching strategies and activities. However, the following team-teaching approach takes advantage of the instructional freedom given to computer teachers, and can be implemented to enable students to perform PBL activities in an NSCT subject area with minimal time and effort from the subject teacher. As Fig. 3.1 shows, the computer teacher and the subject teachers formed a teaching team to introduce PBL in a regular class. The proposed approach has three phases. In the first phase, the computer teacher conducts PBL on computer-related topics to familiarize students with the process of completing a PBL activity and to train them in the necessary technological skills, including productive software usage, fact finding on the Internet, and the operation of hardware (such as digital cameras, camcorders, scanners, and other devices). Another important purpose of conducting PBL in the computer class is to enable students to practice various research tasks, including facts finding, data 31.

(41) analysis, report writing, and oral presentation. It also helps students to develop their collaboration and time budgeting skills. In phase II and III, the subject teacher can then conduct subject-specific PBL activities, knowing that students have already been pre-trained to perform project work. Although the subject teacher must still plan the PBL activities, no other student training is required. Therefore, little or no class time is lost due to student training and only minimal effort is required on the part of the subject teacher.. Figure 3.1: Proposed team teaching approach. In short, the proposed approach requires the computer teacher to perform PBL activities to train students to complete projects successfully. The subject teacher can then focus on subject-specific learning goals in subsequent PBL activities. The experimental procedure is outlined in Figure 3.2. A three-year teaching experiment was performed to test the proposed team-teaching approach for implementing PBL in classrooms.. 32.

(42) Review of Related Literature. Phase I PBL (Computer class). 10 th Grade (2 nd Semester) ―solo‖ teaching. The first midterm examination. Experimental group. Control group. (Project-based learning approach). (Traditional teaching approach) Phase II 11th Grade (2 nd Semester). Achievement test (the second midterm examination). team-teaching. Data analysis. Experimental group. Control group. (Project-based learning approach). (Traditional teaching approach) Phase III 12th Grade (1 nd Semester). Achievement test (the first midterm examination). Data analysis. Figure 3.2: Experiment procedure. 33. ―solo‖ teaching.

(43) 3.2 Experimental Design A three-year teaching experiment was performed to test the proposed team-teaching approach for implementing PBL in classrooms. The experiment was conducted at a suburban high school in Taipei. Like any other typical high school in Taiwan, the school had students in grades 10-12. In this study, 10th grade students participated in phase I of the experiment, before participating in phase II of the experiment the subsequent year. And then 12th grade students participated in phase III of the experiment. The following subsections outline the experimental setup and procedure.. 3.2.1 Subjects Three teachers and six classes participated in this study. A computer teacher and two subject teachers, namely geography and English, conducted the three-year teaching experiment. Each teacher had more than ten years of teaching experience. The computer teacher was also formally trained in conducting PBL and was a certified Master Teacher for the Intel Teach Program (Intel TWT Program, 2011), a program that trains teachers to integrate technology into the classroom and promote problem solving, critical thinking, and collaboration skills among students. The two subject teachers volunteered for the study after participating in a one-hour call-for-participation meeting at the school. Both subject teachers had little experience with PBL or technology-integrated teaching. Before the experiment, the computer teacher led several rounds of discussions on strategies and procedures for successful implementation. By the end of these discussions, all three teachers were convinced that the experiment would benefit the students. In the first year of the experiment, all 10th graders had the same computer teacher for their computer classes. The computer teacher conducted PBL in all 16 10 th grade classes. In year two, students in the 16 classes were randomly re-assigned to different. 34.

(44) classes in accordance with school policy. The geography teacher taught four of the second-year classes, and the English teacher taught two. In year three, the subject teachers taught the same classes. Therefore, six distinct classes were involved in three years of the study. Two of the classes taught by the geography teacher were designated as the control group, and the other two were designated as the experimental group. One of the English teacher’s classes was designated the control group and the other was designated the experimental group. Table 3.1 shows the number of students in each class. Overall, the control and experimental groups in phase II if the study formed from the geography teacher’s classes each included 89 students, whereas those from the English teacher’s classes each included 42 students. This occurred because some students suspended schooling because of sickness or changed classes for some reason. The control and experimental groups in phase III of the study formed from the geography teacher’s classes included 89 and 88 students, whereas those from the English teacher’s class each included 41 students.. Table 3.1. a.. Number of students in the control and experimental groups in phase II study Control Group. Experimental Group. Total. Geography. 89 (45+44). 89 (45+44). 178. English. 42. 42. 84. Table 3.1. b.. Number of students in the control and experimental groups in phase III study Control Group. Experimental Group. Total. Geography. 89 (45+44). 88(45+43). 177. English. 41. 41. 82. 35.