Assessing the Role of Online Technologies in Project-based Learning
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the relationships between teacher-reported use of online resources, and preparedness, implementation challenges, and time spent implementing project- or problem-based learning, or approaches that are similar to what we call “PBL” in general. Variables were measured using self-reports from those who teach in reform network high schools that emphasize PBL approaches (n = 166) and those who do not (n = 164). In both school types, technology use was positively related to the amount of PBL use and teacher preparedness. We used path analysis (two-group SEM) to test a model that predicted online technology use in the context of PBL would have a negative relationship to perceived challenges and a positive relationship to more preparedness, and that these would predict time spent using this approach. Control variables included teacher professional engagement, use of interdisciplinary instruction, and school wide emphasis on PBL or inquiry. Data support many of the predicted relationships, including a direct relationship between online feature use and time on PBL for reform network schools. Outside the reform network schools the path from online feature use to time on PBL was unclear, with only indirect effects. These results suggest areas for further investigation to avoid overstating the role of online technologies.
Article Details
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
American Institutes for Research. (2005). Spring 2005 teacher survey. Washington, DC: Author.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Ash, K. (2012). Educators evaluate ‘flipped classrooms’. Education Week, 32(2), s6–s8. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/08/29/02el-flipped.h32.html
Babbie, E. R. (1991). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baron, K. (2013). Project learning meets technology. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/stw-maine-project-based-learning-technology-overview
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry- based and cooperative learning. In L. Darling-Hammond, et al., Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf
Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and com- puting survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Paper presented at the School Technology Leadership Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Innovative Technologies in Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ccsso.pdf
Becker, H., & Lovitts, B. (2003). A project-based approach to assessing technology. In G. Haertel & B. Means (Eds.). Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Dis- tance Learning, 12(3), 98–118. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/902
Bloom, H., Thompson, S., Unterman, R., Herlihy, C., & Payne, C. (2010). Transforming the high school experience. How New York City’s new small schools are boosting student achieve- ment and graduation rates. New York: MDRC. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_589.pdf
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guz- dial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bodilly, S. J., Purnell, S. W., Ramsey, K., Keith, S. J. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools’ Development Corporation’s demonstration phase. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph _reports/MR729
Boss, S., Johanson, C., Arnold, S. D., Parker, W. C., Nguyen, D., Mosborg, S., . . . Bransford, J. (2011). The quest for deeper learning and engagement in advanced high school courses. The Foundation Review, 3(3), 12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-11–00007
Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2007). Reinventing project based learning: Your field guide to real-world projects in the digital age. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bradley-Levine, J., Berghoff, B., Seybold, J., Sever, R., Black- well, S., & Smiley, A. (2010). What teachers and administrators “need to know” about project-based learning implementation. Paper presented at Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO. Retrieved from http://cellorig.uindy.edu/docs/research /WhatTeachersAdminNTKaboutPBL.pdf
Brush, T. A., & Saye, J. W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/1.2.3.pdf
Buck Institute for Education. (2013). Research summary on the benefits of PBL. Novato, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://bie.org/object/document/research_summary_on_the_benefits_of_pbl
Buck Institute for Education. (n.d.). Project Libraries. Novato, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://bie.org/tag/project+libraries
Camburn, E. M., & Won Han, S. (2008). What do we know about instruction from large-scale national surveys? WCER Working Paper No. 2008–1. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/Working _Paper_No_2008_01.pdf
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2703_3
Creighton, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial leadership for technology: An opposable mind. In R. Papa (Ed.), Technology leadership for school improvement (pp. 3–19). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2013). Buying iPads, common core standards, and computer-based testing. Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice. Retrieved from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/buying-ipads-common-core-standards-and-computer-based-testing/
Cuban, L. (2011). The inexorable cycles of school reform. Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice. Retrieved from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/the-inexorable-cycles-of-school-reform/
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003433
Desimone, L., & LeFloch, K. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to im- prove surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001001
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edmodo. (n.d). About Edmodo. Edmodo.com. Retrieved from https://www.edmodo.com/about
Edutopia. (n.d.). Project based learning. Edutopia.org. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blogs/beat/project-based-learning
Education Week Editors. (2007). A digital decade: Technology Counts looks back, and ahead, after 10 eventful years. Education Week, 26(30), 8–9. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/29/30intro.h26.html
Ely, D. P. (1995). Technology is the answer! But what was the question? The James P. Curtis Distinguished Lec- ture, University of Alabama. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED381152
English, M. (2013). The role of newly prepared PBL teachers’ motivational beliefs and perceptions of school conditions in their PBL implementation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Envision Schools. (n.d.). Project Exchange. Envision Schools. Retrieved from http://www.envisionprojects.org/cs/envision/print/docs/750
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second- order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597
Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 40–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1005
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound. (1999). A design for comprehensive school reform. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Finkelstein, N., Hanson, T., Huang, C. W., Hirschman, B., & Huang, M. (2010). Effects of problem based economics on high school economics instruction [NCEE 2010–4002]. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=89
Garson, G. D. (2008). Structural equation modeling. Stat- notes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm
Gee, J. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33-37. Retrieved from http://dmlcentral.net/sites/dmlcentral/files/resource_files/goodvideogameslearning.pdf
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry- based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20248
Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innova- tion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90025-X
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hanover Research. (2013). New tech schools and student achievement. Washington, DC: Hanover Research. Retrieved from http://www.newtechnetwork.org/sites/default/files/news/new_tech_schools_and_student _achievement_-_membership.pdf
Harris, J. R., Cohen, P. L., & Flaherty, T. D. (2008). Eight elements of high school improvement: A mapping framework. Washington, DC: National High School Center. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/improvement-intervention/files /2011/10/eight-elements-of-high-school-improvement-7-25-08.pdf
Hewitt, K. K., Mullen, C. A., Davis, A. W., & Lashley, C. (2012). Making an impact statewide to benefit 21st- century school leadership. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 9(3), 18–31. Retrieved from https://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/AASA_Journal_of _Scholarship_and_Practice/JSP-Fall2012.pdf#page=18
High Tech High. (2013). HTH Graduate School of Education. Hightechhigh.org. Retrieved from http://gse.hightechhigh.org
High Tech High. (2009). Media Saves the Beach. Hightech- high.org. Retrieved from http://www.hightechhigh.org/unboxed/issue3/cards/pdfs/media_saves_the_beach.pdf
Hixson, N., Ravitz, J., & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended professional development in Project-Based Learning: Impacts on 21st century skills teaching and student achievement in West Virginia (WVDE study). Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1999374
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. In A. O’Donnell, C. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Indiana University School of Education-Indianapolis. (2010). Second annual PBL workshop attracts participants from across state, country. Indiana Education, 2010(August/ September), 1–2. Retrieved from http://portal.education.indiana.edu/Portals/106/iepdf/August%202010.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Technology and student achievement: The indelible link. ISTE Policy Brief. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.k12hsn.org/files/research/Technology/ISTE_policy_brief_student_achievement.pdf
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Smythe, J., & Varon, R. (2008). Challenge based learning: An approach for our time. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://ali.apple.com/cbl/global/files/Challenge-Based%20Learning%20-%20An%20Approach%20for%20Our%20 Time.pdf
Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S., de la Torre, M., & Easton, J. Q. (2006). Small high schools on a larger scale: The first three years of the Chicago high school redesign initiative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/small-schools-larger-scale-first-three-years-chicago-high-school-redesign-initiative
Kleiman, G. M. (2001). Myths and realities about technology in K–12 schools. LNT Perspectives, 14, 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/educ260/documents/myths.pdf
Koschmann, T. D. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J., (1998). A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299830
Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of earning environments (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2012). Eight essentials for project-based learning. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education. Retrieved from http://bie.org/object/document/8_essentials_for_project_based_learning
Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2004). Project based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project based learning (2nd ed.) Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
Marshall J. A., Petrosino, A. J., & Martin, T. (2010). Preservice teachers’ conceptions and enactments of project-based instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19 (4), 370–386. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10956-010-9206-y
Martin, J. E. (2013, August). Project-based learning: Why what and how? [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/JonathanEMartin/PBL-why-what-and-how
Martin, F. G. (2012). Will massive open online courses change how we teach? Communications of the ACM, 55(8), 26–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2240236.2240246
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.
Maxwell, N. L., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J. (2001). Problem-based learning: Modifying the medical school model for teaching high school econom- ics. The Social Studies, 92(2), 73–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377990109603981
McDonald, J. P., Klein, E., Riordan, M., & Broun, S. (2003). Scaling up the big picture. New York: Steinhardt School of Educa- tion, New York University. Retrieved from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/000/411/essay2.pdf
Mitchell, K., Shkolnik, J., Song, M., Uekawa, K., Murphy, R., & Garet, M. (2005). Rigor, relevance, and results: The quality of teacher assignments and student work in new and conventional high schools. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://smallhs.sri.com/documents/Rigor_Rpt_10_21_2005.pdf
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40–42. Retrieved from http://webpages.csus.edu/~ML3226/edte281/LOTIFrameworkNov95.pdf
National High School Alliance. (2005). A call to action: Transforming high school for all youth. Washington, DC: National High School Alliance.
New Tech Network. (n.d.). Our collaborative learning en- vironment: Echo. Newtechnetwork.org.Retrieved from http://www.newtechnetwork.org/echo
Newell, R. (2003). Passion for learning: How project-based learning meets the needs of 21st-century students. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Pearlman, B. (2002). Designing, and making, the new American high school. Technos, 11(1), 12–19. Retrieved from http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_11/1pearlman.php
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(2), 57–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504526
Project-Based Learning Systems. (n.d.). What is Project Foundry? Retrieved from http://www.projectfoundry.org
Ravitz, J. (1999). After the wires: Implementation conditions related to teacher Internet use in schools with high Internet connectivity. Presentation at Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1854480
Ravitz, J. (2007). Survey instrument and descriptive findings: National Survey of PBL and High School Reform. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/5368265
Ravitz, J. (2008a). Project based learning as a catalyst in reforming high schools. Presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.
Ravitz, J. (2008b). New tech high schools: Results of a national survey. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1139394
Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 290–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2010.491432
Ravitz, J., & Blazevski, J. (2010). Assessing the impact of online technologies on PBL use in US high schools. Presentation at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Anaheim, CA. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1139430
Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (Eds.). (2002). Building virtual communities. New York: Cambridge University Press. Riel, M., & Becker, H. J. (2008). Characteristics of teacher leaders for information and communication technology. In J. Voogt, & G.Knezek, (Eds.), International handbook of information technology and secondary education (pp.397– 417). New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_24
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Sandholtz, J., Rignstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Savery, J. R., (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
ShowEvidence. (n.d.). Evidence-based evaluation. Showevidence.com. Retrieved from http://www.showevidence.com/evidence-based-evaluation/
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046
SurveyMonkey. (n.d.). SurveyMonkey. Retrieved from http://surveymonkey.com
Tamim, S. R., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Definitions and uses: Case study of teachers implementing project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(2), 72–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1323
Van Ryzin, M., & Newell, R. (2009). Assessing what really matters in schools: Building hope for the future. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Vega, V. (2012). Project-based learning research review. Edutopia.org. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/PBL-research-learning-outcomes.
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1061
Watson, W. R., & Fang, J. (2012). PBL as a framework for implementing video games in the classroom. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(1), 77–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2012010105
Willhoft, J. L. (2012). Next-generation assessments aligned to the common core. School Administrator, 11(69), 30–33. Re- trieved from http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=25928
Williamson, C. (2008). Why project based learning? Presentation from Teacher Leadership Institute. Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002131
Yetkiner, Z. E., Anderoglu, H., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Research summary: Project-based learning in middle grades mathematics. Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education.