The overall goals of the Applied Information Science and Environmental
Issues (AISEI) course at our college are to expand environmental awareness,
increase computer skills, and develop the English language skills of Japanese
college students. As the course instructors, we consciously chose not to
use print materials in order to reinforce the environmental theme. Instead
we developed a course website that functioned as a textbook, interactive
study guide, student portfolio, and research tool. As a classroom-based
research project, we used weekly web-based student feedback logs to gain
an understanding of student perceptions and attitudes towards the course
structure. Thus, this paper will provide an overview of our research, including
an explanation of the web-based feedback forms. It will offer an analysis
of the student responses and suggest implications for future web-based course
design.
Background
AISEI used English as the language of instruction and followed a collaborative
content-based instructional model (Sagliano & Greenfield, 1998). Students
were expected to reach a basic level of proficiency as they used English
to understand, discuss, and write about simple computing concepts and environmental
issues (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). The course was taught by two
language specialists with computing backgrounds.
The class met for one hour and forty minutes (8:30 - 10:20) three times
a week (MWF) for 15 weeks. As a second-semester, first-year course, AISEI
traditionally has low student enrollment and during the semester that this
articles describes, there were nine first-year students with low-intermediate
English proficiency in the class. All but one student had taken Introduction
to Applied Information Science the previous semester and had basic computer
skills, including those in word processing and email. The class was held
in the college computer lab containing Macintosh Power PCs, and students
were generally seated in front of a computer the entire time. The instructors'
computer at the front of the class was connected to a light box projector.
Images could be projected onto a large screen in the front of the room for
instructional purposes.
In initial planning sessions, we agreed on the following three guidelines
to direct the development and implementation of the course:
Project-based syllabus
Projects emphasize learning through the accomplishment of various tasks
to achieve an end product (see Fried-Booth, 1986; Henry, 1994). In addition,
active learning tasks can be easily integrated into project work. These
include cooperative and collaborative activities that require the formation
of critical thinking skills, decision-making skills, and learner autonomy
(Bonwell & Eison, 1991).Thus, language and computer skills and computer
technologies can be introduced, practiced, and expanded as needed by the
students to complete a project. Environmental issues would function as an
overarching theme for all of the course projects.
We designed the projects to encourage student autonomy (Little &
Dam, 1998). Responsibility for each project's success rested in the hands
of the students as they worked to demonstrate what they were capable of
doing independently. However, projects done at the beginning of the semester
were thoroughly scaffolded (see Chamot & O'Malley, 1994) to create a
low-risk learning environment in which students could become comfortable
learning autonomously. Early projects usually involved the whole class while
later projects were completed by small groups or individuals. In general,
we gave the students a basic outline of each project and the students located
and organized materials through a series of tasks to complete the project.
Project grades were determined according to criteria agreed upon at the
beginning of the semester. Here is a brief description of the four projects
students completed over the semester.
- Environmental Change Documentary Project--Students documented the changes
that occurred to an environment over time by photographing the same location
once a week for ten weeks. The environments encompassed a river, construction
sites, farm fields, and undeveloped areas. The students created a website
in which they described their feelings about change and put up a slide
show showing the change. They used word processing, scanning, and web authoring
with graphics to complete the project. - Environmental Dictionary Project--Students collected and organized
environmental terms and definitions alphabetically into a printed dictionary,
later developing a dictionary website. They used word processing, emailing,
web researching, and web authoring with graphics to complete the project. - Computers and paper project--Students conducted research and collected
data on paper use within the college community, later sharing their findings
via email with students in the U.S. conducting similar research. Students
developed webpages to report additional information. They used word processing,
emailing, web researching, and web authoring with graphics to complete
the project. - Habitat exploration project--Students chose local habitats (urban,
rural, wilderness, ocean) to document by using the five senses of sight,
hearing, touch, smell, and taste. After additional research, the students
created print newsletters, multimedia websites, and videos about the habitats.
They used word processing, graphics designing, desktop publishing, web
publishing, and multimedia web authoring to complete the project.
Course website
The fact that the class would be held in the computer lab and our decision
to use little paper in the course encouraged us to develop an innovative
course website. We agreed that the non-linear nature of the website would
lend itself perfectly to the non-linear, integrated character of the project-based
syllabus. Thus, project descriptions and instructions, learning activities,
support materials and student feedback logs could all become part of the
website. In addition, we would utilize available JavaScript and cgi-bin
technologies(1) to make many of the tasks and activities
interactive, that is, the presentation of the material would be affected
by the user's choices (Ebersole, 1997).
The website layout used a basic frame design: narrow left frame with
a larger main frame. The site navigation bar, an image map in the left frame,
linked the six main sections of the site: This Week, Calendar, Projects,
Activities, People, and Links. Also part of the navigation frame was a hidden
visitor counter. The counter's source site provided extensive details on
the website's hits including date and time of visitor access. All the website
pages were visually unified by a consistent design theme which included
a class logo, clear headings, and a simple color and graphics scheme.
Formative evaluation
Responding to a recent call by Shetzer (1998) for educators to examine
the use of computers in the class, we incorporated an action research project
to help us formatively evaluate (Daloglu, 1998) the students' perceptions
of the web-integrated course design and implementation.
The Action Research Project
Teacher-initiated action research is one readily available tool teachers
have to improve classroom performance. Action research helps the teacher
understand the complex and varied interactions that make up a language classroom
at a particular point in time with a particular group of students. By its
very definition, action research cannot make strong theoretical claims,
but it can provide a framework in which an instructor observes a determined
phenomena and reflects on its effect in the classroom (LoCastro, 1994).
After we identified our area of investigation, we developed a research
plan and began to gather data systematically. Our principal means of gathering
data were weekly web-based student feedback logs with which we collected,
collated, and analyzed student feedback. We also maintained online teaching
journals. In addition, we observed students in the classroom and shared
our work-in-progress with colleagues.
When designing feedback items, we focused on student attitudes and reactions
to the course. However, just as we provided more support with beginning
projects, we scaffolded the content of the feedback logs to help students
become comfortable with the concept of regularly and freely giving their
opinions and ideas. Early logs asked students simply to relate what they
had learned in class, what skills were new, and what they would change about
the class if they could. We used simple fill-in-form HTML, such as text
areas and pull-down select menus, to create the feedback logs. Over time
we discovered that we could focus responses more easily if we used pull-down
select menus and clickable radio buttons as opposed to blank text areas.
We found data collection particularly easy because of the web-based nature
of the instrument. Once we had an HTML template of an online feedback log
utilizing fill-in-forms and cgi-bin, substituting items each week took very
little time.
We asked students to respond to a wide range of feedback items, which
in retrospect probably did not all conform to the research focus yet in
many ways provided us with new directions to explore. Logs asked students
to:
- Determine what language and computer skills they had practiced and
learned through their work on a specific project. - Rank according to preference a variety of activities both on- and off-line
done in one class period. - Describe how they felt about an upcoming email exchange with ESL students
in the U.S. - Evaluate the course website, indicating which pages they used or did
not use and possible reasons for this. - Comment on how they liked or disliked the on-line activities frequently
done in class. - Express their opinions of the group work used in some of the projects.
The end of the semester marked the end of our data collection stage.
Although we had been discussing the data as we collected it, at this time
we began to analyze and reflect on the data more deeply.
Discussion
In this section, we discuss the responses from two feedback logs. In
addition, we would like to invite readers to visit our website where it
is possible to view all of the feedback logs to which we have linked the
students' responses (2) and our interpretation of those
responses at <http://www.miyazaki-mic.ac.jp/classes/fall98/aisenv/index.html>
The November 13 feedback log (see Appendix 1 for questions) asked students
to think about the various parts of the class website, including favorite,
least favorite, most used, and least used page or feature. The
responses indicated that a major reason why students liked the course website
is that it helped them stay organized and focused throughout the semester.
Several students liked the People page because they could access class members'
homepages and check their own grades and attendance. Interestingly, the
latter feature was a reason why one student did not like the People page;
he was scared to see his grades! The most popular pages seemed to be Calendar
and This Week since these pages allowed students to stay up to date and
review past classes. Overall, we were pleased with the students' reactions
to the design of the website.
The critical feedback that students offered will influence the redesign
of the website. Students mentioned that they disliked or seldom used the
Links and Activities pages. These comments might be prompted because the
teachers rarely used either page in class demonstrations. Next year we may
want to have the students develop these pages. We think if the students
felt a certain degree of ownership of the page, they may be more likely
to use it. One student did not like Calendar because it was difficult to
access quickly. We might want to reverse the chronological order of this
page so that the most recent dates are at the top of the page. Another student
disliked Projects because of its high text density. High text density was
also a reason why one student printed some pages. It may be that we need
to think more carefully of the students' needs when creating pages that
give the students instructions. In short, what seems like a good description
to instructors may be overwhelming for students.
The December 4 feedback log (see Appendix 2 for questions) focused on
student attitudes towards group work. The results indicated that the students
were positive about independent group work and an autonomous learning environment.
All of the students agreed with the statement "I like group work"
and the majority preferred group work to working alone. Half of the students
chose yes, mostly to "I like being the group leader", while
the other half chose sometimes, which suggested to us that group
work was successful because there were enough students willing to lead the
groups. This was consistent with the positive attitude demonstrated in the
written comments:
- I think group work is important, but it is difficult.
- I like this group because we are in cooperation with each other.
- I like to do such a group work. But, If group member absent from class,
I would have trouble. I don't want bother my group member. So, I don't
want absent this class when I fell sick.
This last response could have been prompted by the statement "It
bothers me when some students are absent", to which the student reactions
were evenly distributed from No, that doesn't bother me to Yes,
that really bothers me, though the distribution leaned slightly more
towards the latter statement. Interestingly, all of the students felt that
they did more work than the others in their groups, with two students answering
that they felt this was always the case. Nevertheless, this apparently did
not negatively influence the students' overall enjoyment of group work.
With regards to decision making in class, students agreed with a slight
positive balance towards "I like it when the teachers make the decisions
in class", with half of the students answering sometimes. The
exact same slight positive balance was given towards "I prefer it when
the teacher makes groups than when I choose the group". In both of
these items, three students answered yes, usually, but no student
answered yes, very much. These answers would seem to indicate that
the students prefer the teacher to make most class decisions.
Contrary to this conclusion, however, a full three-quarters of the students
agreed with the statement "I like making decisions in class,"
with one yes, very much, while the remaining quarter answered sometimes.
This is a definite positive balance that we interpret as indicating that
the students are comfortable with student decision making and student directed
learning environments, possibly more so than teacher-directed situations.
Still, the fact that students responded positively to teacher decision making
leads us to conclude that the students did not necessarily see their autonomy
in exclusive opposition to teacher decision making.
Conclusion
The development, implementation and evaluation of AISEI has been very
exciting for us. The research project has prompted us to think about many
other areas of the web-integrated course to investigate. We feel that an
effective course website requires substantial planning, and we want to incorporate
what we have learned from the research in our next website. We hope to create
a website that is flexible enough to allow student decision making and incorporate
more student ownership while maintaining the solid framework of the course.
However, in any action research project, it is important to view the research
as cyclical. After implementing design changes, we will begin the action
research process once more.
References
Bonwell, C. & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement
in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington,
DC: George Washington University.
Brinton, D. M. Snow, M. A. & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based
second language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chamot, A. U. & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing
the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Daloglu, A. (1998). A model for constructive use of student evaluation
of teaching. The Language Teacher, 22 (9), 13-16.
Ebersole, S. (1997). Cognitive issues in the design and deployment of
interactive hypermedia: Implications for authoring WWW sites. Interpersonal
Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 5
(1-2), 19-36.
Fried-Booth, D. (1986). Project work.. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Henry, J. (1994). Teaching through projects. London: Kogan Page.
Little, D. & Dam, L. (1998). Learner autonomy: What and why? The
Language Teacher, 22 (10), 7-8, 15.
LoCastro, V. (1994). Teachers helping themselves: Classroom research
and action research. The Language Teacher, 18 (2), 4-7.
Sagliano, M. & Greenfield, K. (1998). A collaborative model of content-based
EFL instruction in the liberal arts. TESOL Journal, 7 (3),
23-28.
Shetzer, H. (1998). Documenting CALL approaches through action research
and critical reflection. TESOL Matters, 8 (4), 13.
Notes
1. It is beyond the scope of this article to further
explain these technologies. Please visit the World Wide Web Consortium's
website <http://www.w3.org/> for
more information.
2. All students have signed release forms giving us
permission to display their work.
Appendix 1 - November 13 Feedback Log
This week we would like you to think about the class website and how
you use it.
- What feature or page do you like the best on the class website? Why?
- What feature or page do you like the least on the class website? Why?
- Which class website page do you use most often besides THIS WEEK? Why?
- Which class website page do you use the least? Why?
- What pages have you printed from the class website? (If none, write
none in the comment box.) Why?
Appendix 2 - December 4 Feedback Log
Project 4 requires you to work independently in groups. What do you think
about this? How do you feel about group work? Please choose whether you
agree (yes) or disagree (no) with the following statements.
1. I like group work.
- Yes, very much.
- Yes, mostly.
- Sometimes.
- No, not much.
- No, not at all.
2. I like being the group leader.
- Yes, very much.
- Yes, mostly.
- Sometimes.
- No, not much.
- No, not at all.
3. I do more work than the others in my group.
- Yes, always.
- Yes, often.
- Sometimes.
- No, not usually.
- No, I think the work is even.
4. I prefer working alone than working in a group.
- Yes, very much.
- Yes, usually.
- Sometimes.
- No, not usually.
- No, not at all.
5. It bothers me when some of my group members are absent.
- Yes, that really bothers me.
- Yes, that bothers me.
- Sometimes that bothers me.
- No, that doesn't bother me.
- No, that doesn't bother me at all.
- 6. I like making decisions in class.
- Yes, very much.
- Yes, usually.
- Sometimes.
- No, not usually.
- No, not at all.
7. I like it when the teachers make the decisions in class.
- Yes, very much.
- Yes, usually.
- Sometimes.
- No, not usually.
- No, not at all.
8. I prefer it when the teacher makes groups than when I choose the group.
- Yes, very much.
- Yes, usually.
- Sometimes.
- No, not usually.
- No, not at all.
9. Other comments about group work (optional):
