Investigating Teachers’ Expectations For Using
Investigating Teachers’ Expectations For Using
Telecollaborative Project Work
by
Barry S. Kramer
Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee
of Lehigh University
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In
Learning Science and Technology
Lehigh University
May 15, 2009
Copyright by Barry S. Kramer
May 15, 2009
Approved and recommended for acceptance as a dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
__________________________
Date
__________________________
Dissertation Advisor
__________________________
Accepted Date
Committee Members:
__________________________
Judith A. Duffield
__________________________
M. J. Bishop
__________________________
Amanda Kloo
__________________________
Margaret Riel
Acknowledgements
In 1988, I first became aware of the work of Dr. Margaret Riel and the Learning Circles project. My initial participation in Learning Circles completely changed my educational career, the way I viewed instruction, and the possibilities that technology could provide to educate children. It was also Dr. Riel who encouraged and supported me to pursue a higher degree and become serious with my interest in telecollaborative project work. I can truly say that I value every conversation, idea, suggestion, and words of encouragement she has ever provided me. It is because of her belief in me that I have arrived at this point. It is to her that I dedicate this work.
I have worked with Dr. Judy Duffield, the chair of my study, for the past three years. She has shown patience, understanding, and a willingness to always listen when I needed it. She always kept me on course and helped me to complete this research in a way that allowed the story to emerge. I am indebted to her for her leadership and guidance. I am also indebted to my committee members – Dr. M. J. Bishop and Dr. Amanda Kloo who continually provided me with guidance, insightful comments, honesty, encouragement, and crucial direction.
This study centers on a community of teachers who every year dedicate their time, energy, and expertise to bring the world of telecollaborative project work to their students. Often they venture into the unknown and outside their area of comfort to bring this new experience to their students in the hope of enriching their lives and bringing the world closer together. This study was made possible because of their willingness to allow me to enter into their world and to share their thoughts, successes, frustrations, and ideas.
I am grateful to the people at Lehigh University and my place of employment, Franklin Township School, who have supported me through my study from the beginning. I am especially thankful to Dr. Andrew Walker and Dr. Jennifer Brill for your initial guidance and wisdom.
Any acknowledgement would be incomplete without the important mention of two special family members who have supported my work from the beginning. My fiancée, Liping Zhang, has consistently provided me with the freedom and support needed to complete this work. Her unending encouragement and commitment has never ceased through this entire process. Lastly, a special thank you to my daughter, Elizabeth Kramer, who always inspires me and reminds me that because of youth such as her, the future is in good hands.
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
ABSTRACT 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 2
Background to the Study 2
Telecollaborative Project Work 2
Telecollaboration 2
Project-based Learning 3
Support For Telecollaborative Project Work 5
Concerns and Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work 7
Learning Circles: An Example of Telecollaborative Project Work 9
Statement of Problem 11
The Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 15
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of Chapters 17
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 18
The Foundations of Telecollaboration 18
Constructivist Theory of Learning 19
Constructivist Learning Environments 21
Project-based Learning 23
Collaborative Learning 26
The Role of Expectations 29
What a Telecollaborative Experience Is Like? 30
Global Learning Communities 31
Constructivist Principles in Online Learning Communities 32
Telecollaboration 34
Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities 38
Interpersonal Exchanges 38
Information Collection and Analysis 39
Problem Solving 40
Connection Between Telecollaboration and Project-based Learning 41
Current Support For Telecollaborative Project Work 42
Learning Circles 44
The Phases of a Learning Circle 44
What Are Teachers Expecting? 49
ICT Use in Education 49
Assessing a Teacher’s Level of Technology Integration 50
Barriers to Technology Integration 52
The Function of ICT in Telecollaborative Project Work 53
Teacher Expectations for Telecollaborative Project Work 55
Reasons for Students and Teachers To Engage in Telecollaborative Project Work 57
Project-based Learning 57
ICT Use 58
Telecollaborative Project-based Learning 59
Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work 64
Ethnographic Analysis of Telecollaborative Project Work 67
CHAPTER 3: METHOD 69
Research Purpose and Questions 69
Research Design and Method 70
Research Focus and Paradigm 73
Data Collection 74
Research Site and Participants 74
Role of the Researcher 78
Sources of Data 79
Surveys 80
Interviews 81
Message Exchanges 82
Data Analysis 84
Data Collection Cycle 85
Pilot Study 90
Testing of Surveys 91
Testing of the Interview Process 92
Testing the Message Analysis Process 93
Validity and Trustworthiness of the Data 95
Trustworthiness 95
Credibility 95
Transferability 96
Dependability 97
Confirmability 97
Authenticity Criteria 98
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY 101
Introduction 101
Survey Sequence and Dates 101
Survey Results 102
Pre-Survey Responses 102
The Participants 103
Background Information 108
Open-ended Questions 112
Question 1 112
Question 2 114
Question 3 115
Additional Responses 117
Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey 117
Changing Expectations 119
Realization of Expectations 124
Learning Circles Meeting Expectations 126
Meeting Student Expectations 127
Meeting Teacher Expectations 130
Meeting Overall Expectations 134
Expectations 140
The Learning Circle Process 142
Future Participation 144
Additional Responses 147
CHAPTER 5: THE CASE STUDY EXPERIENCE 152
Background Information 152
Case Study Group 152
Profiles of Case Study Participants 156
Teacher A 156
Teacher B 158
Teacher C 160
Teacher D 161
Teacher E 162
Teacher F 163
Teacher G 165
Learning Circles Phases 166
Getting Ready for Learning Circles 166
Opening the Learning Circle 168
Planning Student Projects 172
Exchanging Student Work 176
Organizing the Circle Publication 184
Closing the Learning Circle 189
Behavior of the Participants 192
Assessment of Experience 197
Telecollaborative Project Work 197
Project-based Learning 197
Collaboration 200
Types of Projects 202
Completion of Projects 203
How the Participants Described Their Experience 205
CHAPTER 6: Discussion of the Study 212
Introduction and Organization 212
Statement of Purpose 212
Summary and Discussion of the Findings 212
Teacher Expectations: Research Question 1: 213
Realization of Expectations: Related Question 1A. 214
Student and Teacher Expectations: Related Question 1B. 218
Teacher Recommendations for Improving the Process: Research Question 1C. 223
Experiences That Affect Expectations and Participation: Research Question 2. 228
Influences on Future Participation: Research Question 3. 237
Implications for Practice 239
Limitations of the Study 246
Suggestions for Further Research 247
A Final Reflection 251
References 254
Appendix A: iEARN Learning Circles Registration Site 281
APPENDIX B: Consent Email for Surveys 282
APPENDIX C: Pre-Survey 284
APPENDIX D: Interim Survey 292
APPENDIX E: Post Survey 298
Appendix F: Post Survey: Telecollaborative Project Work 300
APPENDIX G: Consent Email for Case Study 304
Appendix H: Interview Protocol for Case Studies 306
Appendix I: Participant Reconfirmation Message 308
Appendix J: Circle News 1 311
Appendix K: Class Survey Template 313
Appendix L: Circle News 2 315
Appendix M: Circle News 3 317
Appendix N: Project Idea Template 319
Appendix O: Circle News 4 320
Appendix P: Circle News 5 322
Appendix Q: Circle News 6 324
Appendix R: Circle News 7 327
Vita: Barry S. Kramer 330
Tables
Number Page
Table 1. Characteristics of Collaborative and Cooperative Learning 27
Table 2. Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities 37
Table 3. Major Phases of the Learning Circles Project 45
Table 4. Learning Circle Age Levels and Project Choices 76
Table 5. Actual Projects for the September 2008 Session of Learning Circles 77
Table 6. Data Collection and Analysis Cycle 86
Table 7. Analysis Cycle 88
Table 8. Learning Circles Phases, Surveys, Dates, and Week Numbers 102
Table 9. Location of Participants 103
Table 10. Type of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked 105
Table 11. Multiple Configurations of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked 105
Table 12. How Teachers Integrate Technology in the Classroom 107
Table 13. Years of Experience with Telecollaborative Project Work, ICT, and Project-based Learning Methodologies 109
Table 14. Use of Project Work With Technology 111
Table 15. Open-ended Question 1 113
Table 16:. Open-ended Question 2 115
Table 17. Open-ended Question 3 116
Table 18. Changing Expectations 120
Table 19. How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey 121
Table 20. How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey 1, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey 125
Table 21. Most Important Outcome Achieved in the Classroom As a Result of Learning Circles: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey 129
Table 22. Most Important Area of Personal Growth That a Teacher Experienced: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey 133
Table 23. Progress of Learning Circle Experience: Interim Survey I and Interim Survey II 136
Table 24. Student Expectations for Learning Circles 140
Table 25. Personal Expectations for Learning Circles 141
Table 26. The Phase of Learning Circles That Best Helped the Participants to Experience Their Expectations: Post Survey 143
Table 27. Case Study Participant Information 154
Table 28. Comparison of Large Group and Case Study Group 155
Table 29. Getting Ready Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008) 167
Table 30. Opening the Circle Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008) 168
Table 31. Planning the Projects Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008) 173
Table 32. Exchanging Student Work Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008) 177
Table 33. Project Ideas for the PPE1 Circle 180
Table 34. Organizing the Circle Publication from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008) 185
Table 35. Closing the Learning Circle from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008) 190
Table 36. Number of Messages Posted by Each Participant 192
Table 37. Project-based Learning Profile Scores 199
Figures
Number Page
Figure 1. The Levels of Organization of iEARN Project Work......................................71
Figure 2. Messages Posted Week-by-Week..................................................................194
ABSTRACT
Telecollaborative project work for students in a kindergarten through 12th grade school setting is an innovative teaching practice that is promoted and supported by various organizations and Internet Websites. Each year teachers from around the world involve their students in these projects, while other teachers abandon the practice after one or a few experiences.
The purpose of this research is to provide users of telecollaborative project work with strategies and ideas to make the practice an educationally stronger experience for all involved. During their participation in a project called Learning Circles, a group of teachers were investigated as a whole and through a small case study to understand what they were expecting and the role these expectations played in teachers assessing their own experience. Interviews, messages, surveys, and documents were analyzed to determine if educators actually realized the expectations that drew them to use telecollaborative project work; the benefits teachers found for themselves and their students; strategies that could be used to improve the process; the influence of teacher’s level of technology integration, project-based learning, collaboration, obstacles, enablers; and the extent to which teacher’s expectations affected their plans to enroll in future projects.
Major findings revealed that most teachers did realize their expectations for their students and themselves, but encountered many challenges and obstacles through their experience. Teachers provided many suggestions for improving the process and identified new collaborative models that could be used to promote greater success for future telecollaborative project work.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
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; Riel, 1992b; Rogers, et al., 1990). Reports and studies have identified telecollaborative project work as an innovative teaching practice and a powerful methodology for promoting learning (Andersen, 2002; Moursund & Smith, 2000). Various organizations and Internet sites such as Global SchoolNet, International Education and Resource Network (iEARN), Schools Online, Oracle Education Foundation’s , International E-Mail Classroom Connections (IECC), ePals, and KidLink support this practice and provide platforms for K-12 schools to accomplish student project work. Organizations such as the Buck Institute, the George Lucas Educational Foundation, and UNESCO continue to fund research and support the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning in education (The George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2005; Markham, Larmer, & Ravit, 2003; Resta, 2002).
Telecollaboration
Telecollaboration is best understood as a type of activity that occurs when students use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to work collaboratively on projects (Harris, 1998). The use of online collaboration allows for students and teachers to utilize technology tools to construct learning strategies that were not possible before the advancement of telecommunication technology into the classroom (O’Neil & Perez, 2003). The power of telecollaboration is that it facilitates the process by which students may work with other students and adults outside the confines of the classroom walls. It also helps facilitate students’ ability to create and present projects that can be shared with the local and world community (Schultz-Zander, Butcher, & Dalmer, 2002).
Even though the term telecollaboration does not automatically imply the use of a project-based learning methodology, many forms of project-based learning do utilize some form of telecollaboration. This occurs because many forms of project-based learning have a clearly defined use of collaboration and frequently use some form of ICT (Moursund, 2003). When the term telecollaborative project work is used in this research it will refer to teaching methodologies that do combine the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning.
Project-based Learning
Project-based learning is an instructional model 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, et al., 2003, p. 3). Students are encouraged “to solve challenging problems that are authentic, curriculum-based, and often interdisciplinary” (Solomon, 2003, p. 1). Project-based learning activities focus on “driving” questions or problems that require students to engage in activities that promote the construction of knowledge (Thomas, 2000). Two major elements of this methodology are the use of student collaboration and teamwork and the emphasis on completing final projects that are realistic and relevant outside the classroom (Howard, 2002).
Project-based learning should not be confused with problem-based learning. Even though there are some similarities such as the fact that both are authentic, constructivist approaches to learning, they are not identical approaches (Esch, 1998). Project-based learning tends to be associated with Kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. Problem-based learning is also used in K-12 classrooms, but has its origins in medical field training (Ryan & Koschmann, 1994). In practice, it is likely that the difference between project-based learning and problem-based learning is frequently blurred and that the two can play complementary roles in combination with each other (Esch, 1998). The differences between the two approaches may lie more in the goals of the learning as well as the assessment and the final products. In a project-based learning approach, the end product is the organizing center of the project and drives the planning, production, and evaluation process (Chard, 1992; Katz & Chard, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In a problem-based learning approach, the end process is generally more summative. The planning, research, and exchange of material (rather than the end product) are the primary focus of the learning process (Duch, 1995).
A major factor that motivates students to engage in project-based learning is having the opportunity to share their findings in presentations to their peers and community (The George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2005). The applications of project-based learning in the K-12 classroom are diverse, ranging from elementary grade projects (Leung, 2002), laptop initiatives in the area of geography (Grant & Branch, 2005), middle level science (Rivet & Krajcik, 2004), computer mediated communication tools in high school (Lang, Peer, & Divaharan, 2005), and as a means of technology integration for pre-service teachers (Gubacs, 2004).
Support For Telecollaborative Project Work
A review of the literature that supports the use of telecollaborative project work can be divided into three areas. The first section shows that there have been summative investigations that have identified the practice as an innovative teaching practice. The last two relate to the benefits for students who participate in projects and teachers who facilitate student projects. These are described in detail below.
Innovation. One category of investigation has looked at telecollaborative project work as a form of adoption of innovation. In a summative examination of technology-enriched instructional innovations and learning environments, Anderson (2002) identified the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning as an innovative classroom practice. Means and Olsen (1995) assessed innovative ways to incorporate constructivist methods into teaching and identified telecollaborative project work as a methodology of great promise. A report by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997) presented the use of ICT, collaboration, and project-based learning in a constructivist environment as being a desirable use of educational technology. 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 authentic, multidisciplinary tasks in which they budget their time, make effective use of limited resources, and work with other people” (p. 63). Generally, researchers appear to suggest that telecollaborative project work is innovative because it is an authentic, constructivist teaching methodology that uses educational technology to promote student learning (Harris, 1998).
Student Benefits. Researchers have found several benefits for students working on telecollaborative project work as well. For example, Cifuentes, Murphy, and Davis (1998) found that when high school classrooms collaborated using the Internet, students demonstrated an increase in self-esteem, academic achievement, and multicultural understanding. Cifuentes et al. also found that students grew personally and intellectually, felt empowered to achieve goals, became comfortable with technology, provided and/or received mentorship, and learned from each other. Gragert (2000) contended that, regardless of the age level, students were more motivated to learn in general when collaborative online project work was used as part of a classroom program. He also summarized teacher testimonials, concluding that online collaborative project work heightens student interests in subject content, language skills, motivation, and opportunities for action from learning. Schulz-Zander et al. (2002) concluded from their research in student cooperation that problem-oriented learning facilitated by ICT can serve as a foundation to help students in all levels of schooling to develop skills in teaching each other, functioning as a learning community, and collaborating in joint partnerships with other schools.
Teacher Benefits. A third category of research interest looks at how educators benefit from their facilitation of student project work in an online environment. Rogers, et al. (1990) focusing on the role of the educator in telecollaborative learning observed that just as it is common for teachers to approach telecollaborative project work with expectations for their students, they also bring expectations for themselves. McGee (1998) looked at the far reaching effects of telecollaborative project work and found that teachers find both expected benefits as well as some unanticipated, but beneficial consequences of their participation. Investigating the learning teachers acquire working with students on K-12 telementoring projects, McGee found that teachers develop online relationships with other teachers that allow them to share ideas and examine their teaching practices. An assessment of teacher professional development by the U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1995) found evidence that telecommunications was an effective tool for developing professional learning communities that allowed teachers to reflect on their practices and learn from other teachers. Riel and Fulton (2001) analyzed the possibilities for creating online learning communities for the purpose of professional development. They suggested information technologies greatly facilitate the development of a collaborative community of learners who can reflect on their teaching practices, share their expertise, and “build a common understanding of new instructional approaches, standards, and curriculum” (Riel & Fulton, 2001, p. 2). While investigating the establishment of a comprehensive professional development program for educators, Garcia (2005) found that online learning communities using ICT have the potential to facilitate teamwork, learning from each other, and knowledge sharing.
Concerns and Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work
Critics, researchers, and even proponents have expressed criticisms and concerns related to the use of ICT and telecollaboration in the classroom (Becker, 1998; Cuban, 2001; Wells, 2006). These criticisms seem to focus on the three areas: the unique attributes of telecollaboration, low usage, and the apparent silence in the literature regarding its practice.
Unique Attributes. The most frequent criticism of telecollaborative project work is tied to larger concerns regarding whether the use of technology in education enhances student learning beyond conventional teaching methods and materials (Clark, 2001; Cuban, 2001; Kozma, 1994). These same criticisms have been also directed at the use of online project work and telecollaboration (Fabos & Young, 1999). Even though the use of telecollaborative project work has been shown to enhance student success by improving self-esteem, academic achievement, multicultural understanding, motivation, and problem solving skills (Cifuentes et al., 1998; Gragert, 2000; Schulz-Zander et al., 2002), critics have charged that these same skills might also be developed using less expensive and more educationally efficient means (Clark, 2001; Cuban, 2001).
Low Usage. Other major concerns center on how teachers use ICT and on the lack of opportunities students actually have to use ICT to work collaboratively. In a study of how teachers integrate the Internet in their classroom for instructional purposes, Becker (1998) discovered that teachers most frequently have students use computers and the Internet as an online library for research. Findings from a major study by the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) indicated that student collaboration using ICT came in as the lowest category at 7% when teachers in public schools were asked how they use computers. More recently, Kozma (2003) surveyed ICT use within innovative, technology-rich school settings and found that, even within a system where the use of technology for project work was promoted, student project collaboration was only used 17% of the time.
Silence in the Literature. Another major concern regarding the use of telecollaborative project work is that there is an apparent absence of research regarding the use of ICT for collaborative online projects in the literature. Wells (2006) has identified that there is a noticeable “silence” in the literature and that even though there appears to be an abundance of examples of project work available to view on the Internet, this appears to be “invisible” to the “academic community who tend to carry out the research and write the reviews” (p. 663).
Learning Circles: An Example of Telecollaborative Project Work
An example of a telecollaborative project that has been well researched, combines the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning, and will be a central part of this investigation is Learning Circles. Learning Circles is an online project that uses a highly interactive, project-based partnership methodology to encourage the creation of student projects among a number of schools located throughout the world (Riel, 1995). The Learning Circle model was developed as part of a research project called the “Inter-Cultural Learning Network” at the University of California, San Diego in the mid 1980s (Levin, Riel, Miyake, & Cohen, 1987). The project was further refined by the use of trial phases that involved hundreds of classrooms (Riel, 1989, 1990b; Riel & Levin, 1990). Eventually the initiative evolved into a commercial service in 1987 called the “AT&T Learning Network.” This network supported collaborative work among thousands of teachers until 1996, when project sponsorship was transferred to iEARN (Learning Circles Website, 2007). iEARN continues to be the consistent sponsor of Learning Circles.
Currently, the Learning Circles project has two sessions a year that are closely aligned to the calendars of schools in the Northern hemisphere. A typical session will involve 6 to 10 groups of schools called Circles. A coordinator creates Circles based on the participants’ project interest, academic level, and geographic location (Riel, 1993). A typical Circle contains 6 to 8 classrooms with the goal being to have two classrooms in the Western Hemisphere and the remaining classrooms distributed throughout the rest of the world. All communication is in English unless special arrangements have been made whereby a Circle will run in another language.
A typical session runs for 16 weeks and follows a structured timeline that has been developed to help schools accomplish various goals and to bring each project to a conclusion (Riel, 1992a). The six phases of the Learning Circle project are: (a) Getting Ready for Learning Circles, (b) Opening the Learning Circle, (c) Planning the Learning Circle Projects, (d) Exchanging Student Work on Learning Circle Projects, (e) Organizing the Circle Publication, and (f) Closing the Learning Circle (Riel, 1993).
Learning Circles is a telecollaborative project that encourages teachers and students to use project-based learning methodologies. After exchanging introductory greetings and cultural information through the use of a survey, teachers and students in each Circle discuss project ideas and negotiate to sponsor an individual project that is educationally curriculum based (Riel, 1996). Each class seeks collaboration on their specific project from the other classrooms in their Circle and commits to contributing in some way to every project that has been posted. After student work has been exchanged, each class works to publish some type of finished project. Generally, these projects are in some electronic form so that they can be easily distributed and shared. The project ends with each class sending farewell messages, the Circle disbanding, and each class attending to their own local concerns (Riel, 1992b). Some teachers will participate in the next session, others will participate once a year, some choose to participate on an infrequent basis, and others may participate only once. The Learning Circles project will be used to investigate telecollaborative project work in this study, because it strongly encourages the use of telecollaboration and project-based methodologies.
Statement of Problem
Each year the International Education and Research Network (iEARN) is the sponsor of an international conference that brings together educators and students to share their successes and struggles with telecollaborative project work. The conference is the largest international gathering of educators who regularly participate and sponsor telecollaborative project work between students in Kindergarten through 12th grade schools throughout the world. I have attended this conference annually since the year 2000 and I have been often struck by the dedication and perseverance of the participants. The teachers who attend often overcome great obstacles and personal sacrifice to provide their students with opportunities to interact and participate with other students in online learning activities.
Every year it appears to me that half of the attendees are familiar faces and the other half are new faces, rich with anticipation and eagerness. The atmosphere is exciting as teachers share the work of their students, and there is clearly an air of international cooperation and camaraderie that rarely seems to take place in the world today. A question that always comes to my mind is what are teachers getting from this experience that causes their dedication to telecollaborative project activities and the methodologies that are associated with the experience? Is it merely the novelty of using ICT, international communication, or participating in online learning activities? I also find myself questioning why some teachers are so devoted to this teaching practice, others appear to experience moderate success, and many choose to abandon its use after one or a few experiences? I really want to know what teachers are expecting when they register their class for a telecollaborative project experience and if they actually realize these expectations. Furthermore, I want to know what teachers who regularly use telecollaborative project work are getting out of it that causes them to be so devoted and supportive of the practice.
This discussion concerning the popularity and usefulness of telecollaborative projects is not new. Harriman (2006) investigated the popularity of telecollaborative projects and the benefits they actually provide while researching government support for the use of technology in Australian schools. According to Harriman, the heart of this issue concerns the ongoing debate about online learning activities and whether or not they actually provide new learning opportunities for students. At the current time, the literature celebrates the benefits of participation for students, but there are few studies that actually examine what teachers experience and gain from a telecollaborative project (Donlan, 1998). Even more puzzling is that the use of telecollaborative project work remains “relatively invisible in reports of school-based use of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) and in the research literature” (Harriman, 2006, p. 1).
Teachers, advocates, and service providers who support telecollaborative project work are passionate about its benefit to students and its value to education. They have and continue to establish online learning networks, create educational governmental agencies, promote professional development, and share knowledge at international conferences (Harris, 1998; Moursund, 2003; Resta, 2002; Rogers, 1999). The use of telecollaborative project work is growing in its acceptance as a teaching methodology (Wells, 2006); but in the literature, there is a noticeable lack of documentation about the expectations teachers bring to a telecollaborative experience, their actual experiences, and the benefits they derive from participation. It is likely that these expectations and experiences play a critical role in teacher’s assessment of the benefits of telecollaborative project work as well as their decision to participate in future projects (Rogers, Andres, Jacks, & Clauset, 1990). This practice could be better understood if the literature could provide a clear picture of what teachers expect and actually gain from their experiences. Information regarding the use of this teaching practice would help to explain why some teachers continue to use telecollaborative project work with students and others drop out during the process. It may also provide insight into why some teachers are passionate about this practice and why it is not attractive to others.
The Purpose of the Study
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand the expectations that lead teachers to use telecollaborative project work with students. The use of this teaching method requires teachers to utilize skills related to the classroom use of telecollaboration, ICT, and project-based learning. There is also the added component that teachers and students often find themselves working with project participants from different cultures who are located in diverse geographical locations. The combination of all these elements produces a unique teaching and learning environment that occurs over an extended period of time and produces different phases of teacher challenges and successes. This research will help to identify and understand the expectations teachers bring to a project and provide answers as to whether or not they actually realize the expectations that drew them to use telecollaborative project work. The experiences of teachers as they participate in this practice and the stories they have to tell will help to provide an understanding of what it is like for a teacher to participate in a telecollaborative project. This research will identify what teachers personally and professionally hope to gain and realize from the experience. Teachers will use their experience to provide insight and suggestions on changes that could be made to improve the experience. Lastly this study will provide some insight on why some teachers continue to use telecollaborative project work and others choose to abandon its use.
Research Questions
This study will investigate the following research questions:
1. What are the expectations teachers have for their students and themselves that motivate them to use telecollaborative project work in a K-12 school setting?
a. How do these expectations change over time as teachers and students participate in a telecollaborative project?
b. What do teachers believe they and their students have gained by participating in a telecollaborative project?
c. What are the suggestions of teachers on changes that could be made to telecollaborative project experiences to improve their future participation?
2. To what degree do teachers’ level of technology integration, use of project-based learning methods, and collaboration, as well as the obstacles and enablers they work with affect their expectations and participation in a telecollaborative project?
3. What are the experiences of teachers as they use telecollaborative project work in a K-12 school setting that influence their future participation?
Significance of the Study
A current assessment of telecollaborative project work in the literature shows that its use is supported by educational systems and its practice continues to be promoted in educational policy (Wells, 2006). At the same time, most of the information on the experiences of teachers and the benefits of telecollaborative project work “comes in the form of anecdotal evidence from teachers, project facilitators and organizations” (p. 657). In a discussion on the use of ICT in education, Wells maintained that recent literature reviews show a “lack of accessible documentation on the development of, and participation in, collaborative online projects by educationalists” (p. 657).
Realizing that there is so little research on what teachers are expecting from telecollaborative project work and what they actually experience during telecollaborative process (Fong, 2003; Wells, 2006), this leads to the question as to what this current study could add to the literature? In the view of this researcher, the four major benefits that could be derived from this study are to:
1. Identify the expectations teachers bring to a telecollaborative experience for themselves and their students when making the decision to involve their class in a project.
2. Understand if teachers’ expectations for themselves and their students are realized or if they change as teachers lead their students through a telecollaborative project.
3. Elicit suggestions from teachers on elements of the process that worked well for themselves and their students as well as ways to improve the process for those who will be participating in the future sessions of a telecollaborative project.
4. Understand the factors that teachers use to determine if they will participate again or if they will abandon the teaching technique.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are used throughout this study. The definitions listed below describe the terms as they are used in this study. Further detail can be found in Chapter 2.
Constructivism - a philosophy or an approach to learning supported by a range of theories or set of beliefs about how people acquire knowledge. The belief that learners construct knowledge through interactions with their environment, and each learner’s knowledge construction is different.
Constructivist learning environment - a place where learners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in a guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities.
Information and communication technology (ICT) - A wide reaching phrase used to describe the range of technologies for gathering, storing, retrieving, processing, analyzing, and transmitting information. In education these facilities and features support teaching and learning and include multimedia, Internet, and devices such as computers, digital photography, video cameras, and communication devices.
ICT-assisted project-based learning - the use of project-based learning facilitated by the use of information and communication technology for project management, research, and communication.
Project-based learning - a comprehensive instructional model in which project work is central to student understanding of the essential concepts and principles of the disciplines.
Telecollaboration - the process of classrooms working together on mutually negotiated projects by use of online communication tools.
Telecollaborative project - a curricular based educational endeavor designed and coordinated by a teacher that involves students in different locations using online communication to work together.
Organization of Chapters
Chapter 2 will provide a review of literature for this study. Chapter 3 will provide a discussion of the research methodology used in this study. Chapter 4 will describe the general findings collected from the complete group of teachers who participated in this study. Chapter 5 will present a detailed case study of a group of seven teachers who participated in one Learning Circles project. Chapter 6 will conclude with a discussion of the findings, present conclusions, and make recommendations for future research.
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Telecollaborative project work for students in a Kindergarten through 12th grade school setting brings together the use of educational and instructional technology with the constructivist orientation of project-based learning. One current use of this teaching methodology is to develop a virtual community of learners who engage in telecollaborative activities. This collaborative learning environment allows students and teachers to grow and learn through interaction with other learners while focused on the creation and construction of mutually negotiated project work.
This chapter presents a review of literature that looks at four areas that will be investigated in this study. First I will look at the theories of learning that are the basis for the development of telecollaborative project work and the use of project-based learning. Second, I will examine the development of telecollaborative project work and present some examples and models of a telecollaborative experience. Third, I will look at the experiences teachers usually expect from a telecollaborative experience. Last, I will explain how the research proposed here fills a gap in the literature by investigating what actually happens in a telecollaborative experience.
The Foundations of Telecollaboration
Both telecollaborative project work and project-based learning have their foundations in the constructivist theory of learning (Moursund, 2003). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) can be used to support a constructivist-learning environment that integrates the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning. Teachers who use telecollaboration often utilize constructivist principles in the way they implement and structure online projects. They also may attempt to create a constructivist-learning environment that incorporates a learning model that includes project-based learning and collaborative learning. Teachers’ understanding and interpretation of constructivist principles in the classroom can be seen in the way they approach telecollaborative project work, how they establish expectations, and how they manage the project experience for their students.
Constructivist Theory of Learning
Constructivism can best be understood as a philosophy or an approach supported by a range of theories or set of beliefs about how people acquire knowledge. The constructivist theory of learning should not be considered a recent addition to the realm of education, but rather has been developed over many years through the work of many philosophers, educators, anthropologists, and researchers. In the early twentieth century, the work of William James and John Dewey initiated and promoted many of the foundational principles for constructivist thinking. In the later twentieth century this work would be further developed by the well-known cognitive and social psychologists, F. C. Bartlett, Jean Piaget, and L. S. Vygotsky (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Gergen, 1995).
The work of Piaget has come to be recognized as a foundation for understanding how constructivism plays a vital role in the education of children (Perkins, 1999; von Glaserfeld, 1999). Piaget (1954) surmised that children construct knowledge of the world through assimilation and accommodation. He concluded from his research that knowledge development results from an internal process of abstracting rules and constructing understanding.
Bruner (1966), who worked with Piaget, stated that learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge. Central to the philosophy of constructivism is the idea that by placing the focus of learning on the internal construction of knowledge, the emphasis for learning shifts the process so that it focuses on the learner rather than the teacher (Markham, et al., 2003). Perkins (1992) explained that learners construct knowledge through interactions with their environment, and each learner’s knowledge construction is different. In this way, learning is not viewed as the transmission of knowledge, but rather as an active process by which learners make sense of the world. Learners should not be thought of as an empty container waiting to be filled with knowledge, but rather as active seekers of knowledge that are looking to make sense of the surrounding world (Driscoll, 2005). In essence, learners use their understanding of current knowledge in order to build new knowledge through the process of conducting investigations, conversations, and activities (Grant, 2002). Bruner proposed that learners select and transform information, construct hypotheses, and make decisions by relying on cognitive structures. These cognitive structures then provide meaning and organization to experiences that allow learners to construct new knowledge from previous knowledge.
In addition to constructivism, Vygotsky (1962) specifically looked at how social influences affect learning and profoundly shapes cognitive development. Central to his social constructivism theory was his belief that biological and cultural development does not occur in isolation. Vygotsky (1978) believed that culture teaches children how and what to think. A key assumption of Vygotsky’s social construction theory was that learning is essentially a collaborative experience in which learners gain an understanding of the surrounding world by mentally negotiating meaning from the different perspectives they perceive (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Furthermore, Vygotsky believed that learners construct knowledge best when they are engaged in social activities (Gredler, 1997).
Constructivist Learning Environments
Wilson (1998) defined a constructivist-learning environment as “a place where learners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in their guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities” (p. 5). Duffy and Cunningham (1996) proposed that when you look at a constructivist-learning environment you should see learners constructing knowledge through social activities, and learners being challenged with realistic learning opportunities. They further proposed that a constructivist-learning environment should include activities that promote authentic learning and encourage social interaction. Furthermore, in this environment you should see instructors functioning as facilitators of learning rather than as knowledge transmitters.
Jonassen (1999) developed a model for designing constructivist-learning environments that emphasized the learner's role in knowledge construction. He proposed a model that included identifying an appropriate question, project, problem to focus on that is ill defined, authentic, interesting, and engaging. Jonassen also suggested providing learners access to related experiences for reference purposes, relevant, just-in-time resources, as well as cognitive tools that scaffold the learner's ability to perform tasks, such as visualization tools, and static knowledge representation tools. He stressed that learners should be provided with tools that support collaboration and communication, such as computer-mediated communications. In his model he also emphasized the need for social/contextual support for the learning environment, such as modeling, coaching, and scaffolding.
Honebein (1996) identified seven pedagogical goals of constructivist learning environments. These goals involved providing experience with the knowledge construction process as well as appreciation for multiple perspectives. They also included embedding learning in realistic and relevant contexts as well as social experiences. Furthermore, Honebein proposed that a constructivist learning environment should encourage ownership and voice in the learning process, the use of multiple modes of representation, and self-awareness of the knowledge construction process.
A comparison of the viewpoints on constructivist-learning environments by Duffy and Cunningham, Jonassen, and Honebein show that all agree that foundationally the environment should be a place where learners can actively construct knowledge through various learning activities. They also propose various support activities that educators should use to promote learning. The three viewpoints do display different main foci. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) present general characteristics of a constructivist-learning environment that an observer might find when viewing learners engaged in a learning task. Jonassen’s (1999) model for a constructivist-learning environment is built around the central problem as being the core of the process. In Jonassen’s model, all other elements of a constructivist-learning environment exist to support the learning that takes place around this problem. Honebein’s (1996) model looked at a constructivist-learning environment from an instructor/facilitator’s viewpoint and identified action-oriented goals a teacher should pursue to create an environment that supports a constructivist-oriented learning task. In general, the characteristics that Duffy and Cunningham, Jonassen, and Honebein identified all constitute elements that should be found in a constructivist-learning environment.
One teaching methodology that is built around the use of a constructivist-learning environment is project-based learning (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001). The next section will discuss the principles and activities that constitute project-based learning.
Project-based Learning
Project-based learning is a teaching methodology that uses an inquiry process to motivate learners to solve challenging questions and problems by constructing collaborative projects that integrate subjects within a school curriculum (The George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2005; Inquiry Page Project Group, 2001; Thomas, 2000). Research has shown project-based learning to be an effective method for increasing student motivation and improving problem-solving and higher order thinking skills (Becker, Wong, & Ravitz, 1999; Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, 1999a, 1999b; Gallagher et al., 1992; Ross et al., 1999; Stepien et al., 1993; Stites, 1998). The theoretical foundation of project-based learning is strongly grounded in constructivism. Project-based learning can be viewed as one approach to creating a learning environment that utilizes many of the principles of constructivist theory (Driscoll, 2005).
There are many different definitions of project-based learning, but there is no universal definition that is agreed upon by all practitioners and proponents (Moursund, 1999, 2003). Common definitions of project-based learning identify it essentially as a model that “organizes learning around projects” (Thomas, 2000, p. 2). All definitions agree that it begins with a problem to be solved or question to be answered (Kozma & Schank, 1998). This problem should be authentic (Markham, et al., 2003), challenging (Thomas, 2000), and without a predetermined, correct solution (Blumenfeld, et. al., 1991). Project-based learning tasks take students through an extended inquiry process during which they “pursue solutions to nontrivial problems, ask and refine questions, debate ideas, design plans and artifacts, collect and analyze data, draw conclusions, and communicate findings to others” (Kozma & Schank, 1998, p. 9). Through this process students learn to “budget their time, make effective use of limited resources, and work with other people” (Moursund, et al., 1997, p. 63). A project-based learning activity ends with students constructing realistic products and/or making presentations of their solutions (Thomas, 2000).
The project-based learning approach begins with learners being presented with a problem or challenge to solve without a predetermined solution. Learners have the responsibility to design the process by which they reach a solution. Each problem or challenge requires research and information gathering. Students are responsible for determining their resources and managing their data (Markham, et al., 2003). Evaluation takes place continuously in the project-based learning process in order for students to adequately assess the effectiveness of their research and work. As part of this process there are regular times for student discussion and reflection. In the end, a final product is generated and this product or artifact is evaluated for its quality. Any time project-based learning is used in a classroom, there should be an atmosphere that tolerates error and change because risk taking, creativeness, and inventive thinking are encouraged (Global SchoolNet, 2000).
As part of the initial planning process, the project-based learning approach asks learners to consider and plan a project idea that culminates in the creation of an artifact as part of the solution to their problem. In order to develop this project idea, learners have to solve problems by researching and acquiring specific content knowledge. End projects will vary widely in scope based upon the amount of time it takes to complete a project idea. Also, learners will use different levels of technology based on the complexity and sophistication of their overall project (Esch, 1998).
The project-based learning approach uses a production model that generally follows these steps: planning, implementation, and processing (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). In the planning phase, the learner chooses the topic, searches resources for needed information, and organizes these resources into a usable form. In the implementation or creation phase, the learner develops a project idea, combines the contributions of the group, resolves problems and issues that arise in production, and builds a product. In the processing phase, the overall goals of the project are shared with other groups, feedback is obtained, and then the group reflects on the end product.
For the purposes of this study the project-based learning model that will be investigated involves the use of ICT and includes key elements such as a motivating problem; a concluding product, presentation, publication, or performance; and project communication, production, and presentation facilitated by ICT. Students should have ownership of the process; be actively involved in discovering and constructing knowledge rather than passively learning; and be involved in some form of collaboration involving a group of students and/or classes of students. The learning experience should focus on the use of higher order thinking skills throughout the problem and process; contain ongoing assessment; and feature teacher facilitation.
The use of student collaboration is a common element found in project-based learning models. The next section defines the term and looks at characteristics of student collaboration.
Collaborative Learning
The use of collaboration, cooperation, and communication skills is a common theme among most project-based learning models (Lopez-Ortiz & Lin, 2005). The project-based learning process focuses learners on using their accumulated skills and current understanding of a problem to construct a solution and develop a product that displays their accumulated problem-solving efforts. Interaction, negotiation, and consensus building with other learners are major goals of the project-based learning methodology. Students are encouraged to work collaboratively with the understanding that the solution to a problem can best be accomplished by utilizing the shared body of knowledge that exists among the group of learners involved in the problem-solving task. Efficiently using shared knowledge in a collaborative endeavor is a major challenge of the project-based learning approach (Markham, et al., 2003).
The terms collaborative learning and cooperative learning are often used interchangeably. It is possible that some of this confusion in the literature began when the researchers Johnson and Johnson (1996) used the term cooperation to refer to higher-level group work usually associated with collaborative learning models (Changwatchai, 2005). There are important distinctions between the two learning processes even though both methods involve placing a group of students in a shared learning task (see Table 1). Cooperative learning generally focuses on a group of learners sharing various roles in a learning task. Bernard, Rubalcava, and St-Pierre (2000) described a cooperative learning structure that included having students in clearly defined roles, each contributing a part to the learning task, with the combined effort being the completion of a common group goal. Ideally, the final product or conclusions of the group should be a sum total of the efforts of each individual contribution.
Table 1
Characteristics of Collaborative and Cooperative Learning
|Likenesses and Differences Between Collaborative and Cooperative Learning |
|Collaborative |Cooperative |
|1. Learners work together in groups. |1. Learners work together in groups. |
|2. Focus is on group consensus building through cooperation |2. Focus is on shared distribution of work tasks among group |
|among members. |members. |
|3. Utilizes individual group members’ abilities and |3. Defined set of processes to help learners interact. |
|contributions. | |
|4. Shared authority and responsibility among group members. |4. Group exists to accomplish a task or develop an end |
| |product. |
|5. Structure of learning groups defined by participants. |5. Structure of learner groups defined by the teacher. |
Collaborative learning focuses on the mutual engagement of learners in the learning process. The primary focus is to cause students to take advantage of their own unique abilities and perspectives to achieve a group consensus that is greater than the sum of all the collective efforts of each individual (Panitz, 1997). Bruffee (1993) defined collaborative learning as "a reculturative process that helps students become members of knowledge communities whose common property is different from the common property of the knowledge communities they already belong to" (p. 3). Brown and Palincsar (1989) proposed that a major reason for using a collaborative learning structure is to promote the use of active and constructivist-learning as well as cause students to use higher-order thinking skills. Slavin (1995) saw collaborative learning as the development of a learning community that is formed to share their expertise with each other and accomplish some type of learning task. In Slavin’s view, the role of the teacher is minimized to allow collaborative groups to achieve their own consensus.
Project-based learning models consistently include the use of collaborative learning as a primary feature of the process (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; The George Lucas Educational Foundation. 2005; Global SchoolNet. 2000; Markham, et al., 2003; Moursund, 2003). Major reasons to use student collaboration with project-based learning are promoting the attributes of work sharing, examining perspectives from different viewpoints, defending personal positions, developing common goals, negotiating solutions, and building a sense of community among learners (Bryson, 1994; Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995; Hartley, 1999; Reyes, 1998). Using collaboration in the project-based learning process can be seen as another way to promote real-life experiences for students to use their own understanding, research, ideas, and imagination to construct knowledge (Tongdeelert, 2003). Students who are engaged in collaborative learning for the purpose of project work become a group of learners focused on a shared learning task. This is, in essence, a community of learners dedicated to a common goal.
Telecollaborative project work is a learning approach that allows learners to construct knowledge through social interaction. It is best accomplished in a constructivist-learning environment that promotes challenging and authentic learning opportunities where the teacher functions more in the role of a facilitator of learning than a person who imparts knowledge. Ideally, when teachers use telecollaborative project work they are looking to engage in project work that is based on constructivist principles, uses some project-based learning methodology, and engages their students as well as themselves in collaborative activities. In this study, I will be looking to see if teachers are using constructivist principles in their approach to telecollaborative project work and if this plays a major role in their overall experience. I will also be exploring the degree to which these principles shape their expectations for the process, how these expectations shape their experiences with other participants, and if their expectations play a major factor when teachers evaluate the success of their experience.
The Role of Expectations
Expectations are an important factor to consider, because of the role they play in the educational process. The well publicized Pygmalion study conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) concluded that the intellectual development of students does have a direct relationship to what teachers expect and how those expectations are communicated. Since this ground breaking study, there has been a great deal of research to study the effect and impact of teacher expectations on students (Cotton, 1989). Most studies have generally focused on how teacher and school expectations directly affect student outcomes. Some studies have supported the validity of expectancy effects (Brattesani, 1984; Brophy, 1983; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1992), while others have found technical issues they believe question the results of Rosenthal and Jacobson (Snow 1969; Thorndike 1968; Wineburg 1987). Even though the discussion still continues in the research community, the consensus among educators and the general public is that expectations communicated school wide and in classrooms do have an effect on student achievement and attitudes (Cotton).
Understanding the role of expectations in telecollaborative project work is important because they can serve as a filter through which teachers make decisions regarding their practices (Harris & Figg, 2000). Expectations may also influence the choices teachers make in selecting various types of educational opportunities for students and may predispose teachers to choose or gravitate toward specific learning activities (Levin, 2008). The realization or adjustment of expectations may also influence how teachers evaluate educational experiences (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006).
What a Telecollaborative Experience Is Like?
The idea of telecollaboration developed from the goal of connecting learners together in a global learning community. The development of ICT tools has allowed for the establishment of virtual communities of learners. In order to understand this experience, it is useful to understand how the term telecollaboration came to be used to describe a type of learning experience. This next section will first discuss how telecollaborative project work developed as a use of ICT integration. After this I will discuss how constructivist principles found their home in online learning communities and how online learning communities utilized ICT to develop the process of telecollaboration. To help understand the different types of activities that can be part of the telecollaborative process, I have identified the various classifications that can be used to describe different telecollaborative experiences. I will follow this with an explanation of how current uses of telecollaboration often use project-based learning as a model for managing the project construction phase. I will then look at the support that currently exists by groups and organizations to promote and facilitate telecollaborative project work. The last part of the section will describe a project called Learning Circles that is illustrative of the type of work teachers can accomplish using telecollaboration and project-based learning.
Global Learning Communities
The idea of using technology to connect communities of learners internationally had its beginning in 1925 in the rural mountain town of Le Bar-sur Loup in southern France. A classroom teacher, Célestin Freinet, and a colleague began an exchange program between classrooms that had a transforming effect on their teaching and inevitably lead to the beginning of the Mouvement de l’École Moderne (Modern School Movement) (Rogers, 1999). Their project work included the exchange of student essays, photographs, and cultural artifacts between schools. Their first use of technologies involved the use of printing presses and the French postal network. New technologies would later be utilized as they became available. From the beginning, their practice was not technology driven, but rather was “based on good and sound teaching practices” that were continually “tested and refined through decades of collaboration, reflection, and success” (Roberts, 2004, p. 1). At his death in 1966, Freinet’s global learning network involved over 10,000 schools in 33 nations and is still one of the largest technology-based learning communities in history (Cummins & Sayers, 1995).
The idea of using electronic networks as a place where learners from different areas of the world can come together, interact, and share knowledge was a natural extension of Freinet’s dream of a global community of learners (Rogers, 1999). Furthermore, the initial promise of introducing the information superhighway into education brought with it the hope that global learning networks could be established in which students could participate in intercultural collaborative learning tasks (Cummins & Sayers, 1995). These new learning environments “suggest that computing and networking technologies could potentially find their most powerful application within the framework of the constructivist paradigm” (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. 1997, p. 56).
Constructivist Principles in Online Learning Communities
The foundational principles of constructivist learning environments have important implications for the design of online learning communities (Tam, 2000). In a summative evaluation of curricula, Moursund (2002) found that ICT provides a platform for the development of instructional models that facilitate constructivist-learning environments. Thorsen (2003) proposed that constructivist theories of learning provide an ideal foundation for developing online learning network models for the promotion and facilitation of student project work.
A constructivist-learning environment that supports a community of learners engaged in online collaborative project work should be based in the foundations of constructivist learning theory and should utilize the unique communication, productivity, product creation, and presentation qualities that ICT can provide (Resta, 2002). The student environment should be one that is based in a constructivist philosophy that features students maintaining as much ownership as possible of content and resources. The experience should be problem based, centered around a problem that contains authentic content, and characterized by tasks that are real world, authentic, and compelling. This experience should be defined by clear student goals that include incremental steps and end results, rich with opportunities for social interaction, and characterized by intellectual challenges that focus on time commitment resources, discovery learning, and higher-order thinking skills. Project work should be facilitated by a teacher who functions as a guide, mentor, and resource, and be collaborative among a group of students and/or classes of students. The experience should conclude with a product, presentation, publication, or performance and be assessed on an ongoing basis at each incremental stage of the process
Ideally, the framework of an online environment should contain all the traditional elements of a constructivist-learning environment (Tam, 2000). It should also have the potential to provide support and opportunities for interaction with multiple human and digital resources that have not been traditionally found in a classroom environment.
Today, progress towards the development of a constructivist-oriented learning environment can be seen in the various ways that the Internet is used in education. Even though not originally intended for use by the K-12 educational community, the use of the Internet has shown steady growth among K-12 educators and students since its introduction into schools (Resta, 2002). Throughout the 1990s, classrooms became connected so that teachers and students could benefit by using the Internet for instructional purposes (Winters, 1998). Online networks facilitated by ICT are being used to create virtual learning environments that can facilitate student interaction and collaboration (Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Harris, 2002). An initial promise was the vision that students could benefit by being networked with other students in collaborative learning tasks (Silva & Breuleux, 1994). Kearsley (2000) proposed that, without the limits of geography, students now have new learning opportunities that were not practically possible before the use of ICT in the classroom. Central to this is the idea that ICT has the potential to allow students to be part of a global community where culture and ideas can be exchanged as students learn about one another and from each other (Gragert, 2002). Teachers are also finding that projects with international classes provide students with opportunities “for language development when used in conjunction with process writing, for social integrations when combined with cooperative learning techniques, and for critical inquiry when used within a framework for critical literacy” (Figueroa, Sayers, & Brown, 2001, p. 8). Communication that is facilitated through use of computers can allow teams of student learners to be created from those who live in diverse and distant locations. These teams can be comprised of students who would never be able to physically work together because of their geographic location, social class, or cultural differences (Andres, 1995; McCormick & McCormick, 1992; Riel, 1993; Zimmerman, Zimmerman, & Blanton, 1995).
Telecollaboration
Different writers and researchers have used various terms to describe learning that occurs when one connects students and teachers through the use of online networks. Craig (1997) discussed student-oriented projects that combined written language, use of communication technology, and were focused on a specific topic. He used the term “telecollaborative project” and defined it as “an online project that blends curriculum, instruction, and technology” (p. 6).
Riel (1990b) initially used the phrase “cooperative learning across classrooms” to indicate an educational project that involves sharing information with another person or group of people by means of some long distance computer network. These projects involved collecting data, conducting interviews and surveys, analyzing data and drawing conclusions. Riel has also used the phrases “educational telecomputing” and “educational telecommunication.” Projects that fall in these categories could range from setting up a simple information exchange relationship between students in two geographically separated classrooms to involving many classrooms and experts from around the world in an information-gathering project that requires a collaborative effort. Riel’s (1995) work led to the creation of the AT&T Learning Network that was established to promote a model for connecting classrooms around the world through the use of telecollaboration.
Rogers, et al. (1990) used the term “telecomputing” to refer to the interactive and collaborative project facilitated by the use of communication technology. The work of Rogers and Andres led to the formation of the Global Schoolhouse Network (Global SchoolNet Website, 2006), which is dedicated to promoting collaboration among teachers and students in diverse geographic areas by means of electronic networks. In describing this type of student project work, the Global Schoolhouse Network has used the terms online collaborative learning; online collaborative project work; collaborative, project-based learning on the Internet; networked-based learning; and recently networked project-based learning.
The Global Schoolhouse Network identifies the Internet and World Wide Web as a “communications and collaboration medium” (Global SchoolNet Website, 2006). They present ideas on how teachers can engage and challenge students to learn by using the Internet and World Wide Web as a powerful communication tool for gathering information and accomplishing multimedia presentations. The Global Schoolhouse Network further offers that online collaborative project work and networked project-based learning can be accomplished by using the communication resources of the Internet to facilitate that exchange of ideas and research between students in different school and learning locations. They further state that because this project work can be viewed on the Internet it can be of value to both the student creators and the international world community (Global SchoolNet Website).
Harris (1995, 1998) has used both phrases “telecomputing projects” and “telecollaborative projects” to refer to Internet-assisted learning activities that generally involve students collaborating with students or adults in different locations. Harris went on to identify that “these projects share: experiences, beliefs, data, information, problem-solving strategies, products they have developed, or the joint development of products” (p.4).
Online networks facilitated by ICT are being used to create virtual learning environments that can facilitate student interaction and collaboration (Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Harris, 2002). Harris (2000) has shown how a networked learning environment can provide students with at least eighteen different types of opportunities to communicate, share resources, and collaborate with other students and teachers around the world (see Table 2).
Table 2
Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities
|Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities |
|Genre |Type of Activity |
|Interpersonal Exchange |Keypals |
| |Global Classrooms |
| |Electronic Appearances |
| |Telementoring |
| |Question and Answer |
| |Impersonations |
|Information Collection and Analysis |Information Exchanges |
| |Database Creation |
| |Electronic Publishing |
| |Telefieldtrips |
| |Pooled Data Analysis |
|Problem Solving |Information Searches |
| |Peer Feedback Activities |
| |Parallel Problem Solving |
| |Sequential Creations |
| |Telepresent Problem Solving |
| |Simulations |
| |Social Action Projects |
Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities
Interpersonal Exchanges
Interpersonal exchanges are identified as exchanges of e-mail, large group discussions, and video conferencing activities. Harris (2002) identified these activities as the most used in educational telecomputing. Harris labeled activities in this category as: keypals, global classrooms, electronic appearances, telementoring, question-and-answer activities, and impersonations. The structure and form of these projects generally follows similar classroom activities that have been done in the past without the use of computers or other forms of educational technology. The use of telecomputing helps to facilitate these activities and to create connections that extend far beyond the boundaries of the classroom.
Keypals. Keypals is the most popular telecomputing activity and is essentially the pairing of student classrooms for the purpose of exchanging email. It could be best described as a digital penpal project. The major challenge for teachers is to manage the flow of messages between students. Generally these projects do not focus around specific topics or research interests.
Global Classrooms, Electronic Appearances, Telementoring, Question-and-Answer, and Impersonations. Global classrooms involve two or more classrooms studying a specific curricular topic in a similar time frame. This can be done for a short or long-term project. Generally the activities involve the sharing of information regarding current units of study. Electronic appearances, telementoring, and question-and-answer activities all involve the use of persons from outside the classroom who help with a learning activity. This is often accomplished by creating an “electronic” appearance of a guest or expert through the use of videoconferencing. Having a student or teacher impersonate a character that is found in a piece of literature or history forms an impersonation activity. Students electronically communicate and interact with someone who answers their questions over a computer. In this way a character from literature or a person from a page of history comes to life and interacts with students.
Information Collection and Analysis
The information collections and analysis category is built around students collecting, compiling, and comparing information to support both student and teacher learning. Harris identified five activities in this categories; information exchanges, database, electronic publishing, telefieldtrips, and pooled data analysis. The power of information collections is that these different activities and structures can be linked to provide multiple experiences for learning.
Information Exchange and Database. Typically an information exchange activity occurs when a group of classrooms exchange information on a selected topic of mutual interest. Generally this information is then managed into different formats so that it can be shared with others. An example of this might be the creation of a group database of information.
Online Publishing. Students also share information through the use of online publishing. This activity is done through the use of online periodicals, online galleries, shared Web pages, and multimedia tools.
Telefieldtrip. A telefieldtrip occurs when a classroom or group of educators take an actual field trip and share their experiences with other classes through the use of shared online information. Other students participate by sharing their experiences or by being a part of a virtual expedition such as Maya Quest 1998 and Galapagos Quest 1999. Students generally participate asynchronously, but telefieldtrips do offer the opportunities to experience parts of the trip in real time.
Pooled Data Analysis. A pooled data analysis occurs when students gather all their data together in one location for the purpose of group analysis. This is useful for large collaborative research projects and the analysis of scientifically gathered information.
Problem Solving
The last category discussed by Harris is problem-solving projects. Activities in this category are information searches, peer feedback activities, parallel problem solving, telepresent problem solving, simulations, sequential creations, and social action projects. Projects in this category focus on using collaborative interactions to promote the development of higher order thinking skills through the use of active learning opportunities.
Information Searches and Peer Feedback Activities. Information search activities are constructed by having students use online or traditional resources to answer a specific set of questions in a defined time period. Often these activities are designed as short-term competitions designed to support convergent and deductive thinking. Similarly, peer feedback activities are set up as an electronic debate in which students give responses to each other’s ideas and opinions.
Parallel Problem Solving, Telepresent Problem Solving, Simulations, Sequential Creations, and Social Action Projects. Parallel problem solving activities ask students to explore solutions to a problem by interacting online through the use of discussion. The format for this activity can be done in the form of a global exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions for the purpose of solving real-world problems. A telepresent problem-solving activity uses various forms of multimedia to connect students. During these activities, students from various geographic locations meet asynchronously or in real time to engage in cooperative tasks. This might involve engaging in a computer-mediated project that involves the use of a robotic arm or some other technology-driven manipulative object. A simulation is designed to facilitate student involvement in some type of problem that is created to resemble a real-life situation. Sequential creations are generally associated with an art-based project and often serve as a written extension of the project. A social action project has students engaging some real-world problem. After students investigate a problem they are then asked to recommend solutions that can be viewed and evaluated by other participants.
Harris (1998) maintained that each of these different telecollaborative experiences is not necessarily an end product unto itself, but adapted and modified to meet various educational goals. It has become common for teachers to combine these telecollaborative project categories identified by Harris into larger projects that are designed to be forms of project-based learning.
Connection Between Telecollaboration and Project-based Learning
There is no definitive relationship between telecollaboration and project-based learning, but there are some instances where the two are associated or an assumption is made whereby telecollaboration naturally implies the use of project-based learning. Prior to the advent of ICT, artifacts created as part of the project-based learning process were generally some physical creation, but today they often take the form of a digital creation. Moursund (2003) has described how ICT can be a powerful tool in the data management and creation phase of project-based learning. An examination of Harris’s categorization of telecollaborative activities helps to understand how these could be used alone or in multiple combinations to facilitate project-based learning type activities.
Internet Websites devoted to promoting telecollaborative type activities such as iEARN and Global School Net have developed online projects and resources to help teachers and students participate in telecollaborative activities. These activities are often in the form of projects that can be built around one type of activity described by Harris or more complicated project-based learning types of activities that are often combination of the activities described by Harris.
Current Support For Telecollaborative Project Work
It would seem, that with the abundance of online technology available, it would be easy to find schools and students doing telecollaborative project work. Yet there are many obstacles and difficulties that teachers find in making connections (Berenfeld, 1996a; Harris, 2000; Young, 1999). School curricula are diverse and often the goals of one classroom are not the same as others in different regions of a country. Collaborative project work with schools in different cultures and regions of the world is problematic due to the fact that schools in different countries follow different timetables and also have different priorities. School breaks that are often built around national holidays can vary greatly around the world. High-stakes, government-required examinations often cause schools to abandon collaborative project work during testing periods. Also there are vast cultural differences in how educators assign priorities in the value and role of project work in the curriculum. It is common for schools to drop out unexpectedly as teachers and learners become overburdened with local concerns, much to the dismay and detriment of active project participants. Furthermore, the process of finding partner schools interested in collaborating on the same projects at the same time can involve a great deal of teacher time.
There are various organizations with Websites that are dedicated to providing teachers with information, resources, and support for online project work. Many of these organizations provide opportunities for teachers and students to telecollaborate, but only a few specifically promote project-based learning activities. Throughout the past 10 years there have been numerous organizations that have existed and have since stopped providing services. Major organizations that continue to provide services are Global SchoolNet, the International Education and Resource Network (iEARN), Schools Online, Oracle Education Foundation’s , International E-Mail Classroom Connections (IECC), ePals, and KidLink. Of these seven educational support organizations only Global SchoolNet and iEARN specifically promote online resources to help teachers engage in ICT-assisted project-based learning activities (Global SchoolNet Website, 2007; iEARN Website, 2007).
Learning Circles is an example of a telecollaborative project that each year brings together teachers and students from between 100 to 150 classrooms and uses an interaction model to promote project-based learning activities that focus around literary themes. It should be noted that this model has been used extensively for many different types of projects in addition to literary themes. Currently iEARN facilitates and supports the Leaning Circles project (Learning Circles Website, 2007).
Learning Circles
The Learning Circles telecollaborative experience is a structured process that begins with interested classroom teachers registering for projects (Riel, 1993). Teachers and classrooms are then profiled and matched together based on the age level of the students and their area of project interest. After this, a coordinator creates a group (or Circle) of 6 to 8 teachers who are brought together for a 3 to 4 month period to work on telecollaborative project-based learning type activities (Riel, 1996). The project choices for the group are ideally organized around a selected theme and then drawn from the curriculum objectives or content standards of each of the classrooms in the Circle. As an example, if the selected theme is creative writing, then each school would investigate a problem that involves some use of creative writing, is project-based, and can be justified because it addresses some local curriculum objective or content standard (Riel, 1992b).
The Phases of a Learning Circle
The Learning Circles process follows a structured timetable designed to promote teacher and student online interaction (Riel, 1992a). There are six distinct phases that are designed to facilitate classroom interaction and the development of project-based activities (see Table 3) (Riel, 1990a). The first phase of Learning Circles begins with teachers preparing their classrooms for interaction with other students. This is also a time for classrooms to identify any technical or organizational issues that may exist. After this, Circles are officially opened online with an exchange of greetings. Messages are transmitted by email or through the use of online interactive forums that are supported by the iEARN. Through the exchange of messages and surveys that focus on cultural information students come to know each other. Part of this exchange can also involve the exchange of physical artifacts sent by surface mail.
Table 3
Major Phases of the Learning Circles Project
|Six Phases of the Learning Circle Process |
|1. Getting Ready for Learning Circles |
|2. Opening the Learning Circle |
|3. Planning Student Projects |
|4. Exchanging Student Work |
|5. Organizing the Circle Publication |
|6. Closing the Learning Circle |
The third phase of Learning Circles is the most crucial and involves the development of Project Ideas that eventually become specific requests for information. Projects are designed to be collaborative in nature and involve students exchanging ideas, beliefs, opinions, and data. The development of projects involves a great deal of discussion between students and teachers and could be characterized as a negotiation. Teachers and students are encouraged to draw ideas from their local curriculums and promote project choices that are based in student interest. Student interest and ownership should be an integral part of this process. Projects generally focus around a central literary theme such as journalism, education, creative writing, geography, global issues, or environmental concerns. A school-sponsored project is designed to address one aspect of the overall project theme and is composed of elements that will allow for collaboration with students in other schools.
Phase four of Learning Circles is the Exchange of Student Work. During this period students research and develop information for other classrooms. Students will also begin to develop the framework and basic information for their own project. The commitment classrooms make is to supply information in some form for every classroom that makes a request. This may involve responses from and entire class of students or from student teams. The collection, management, organization, and distribution of information become a critical component of the process at this time.
The fifth phase of Learning Circles is the publication phase and involves students taking all the information that has been collected and organizing into some type of publication that can be shared with all the classrooms in the Circle. In the past, these publications were traditionally print publications that were compiled, edited, and published in a book form. The use of ICT has broadened this aspect of Learning Circles and has allowed learners to engage further into project-based learning through the creation of digital artifacts. Currently, publications take on the form of cross-platform digital presentations created using Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Websites, blogs, Wikis, PDF files, html documents, digital video, and Mp3 files.
After each class publishes its project, all pieces are brought together and made available for viewing, downloading, and assessing through the use of interactive forums and Websites. The last phase of the Circle is the ending. Just as a regular school classroom has a beginning and an end, Learning Circles also disbands when projects are completed. Each new Learning Circles session begins with new groupings of classes (Riel, 1990a).
Learning Circles brings together diverse types of classrooms from many varied geographic areas (Riel, 1995). Schools that participate in Learning Circles cover a wide range of types. They may range from large urban districts, suburban schools, remote rural schools, or even home schooling groups. Circles are also composed of students from a very diverse background of educational, physical, and social abilities. The use of online communication allows students to interact without regard to restrictions that might normally prevent them from interacting with each other. The only requirement an educator needs to participate is a computer networked to the Internet. A Circle will routinely feature 2 to 3 classes from North America and then one or more classrooms from all the inhabited continents throughout the world. It is common for students from India, Kazakhstan, Romania, Australia, Kenya, United Kingdom, Iran, Netherlands, and the United States to be communicating with each other on cultural and project-related issues (Learning Circles Website, 2007).
Research associated with Learning Circles has shown various educational benefits for students and teachers that can be associated with their engagement in collaborative project work using electronic networks. In a study that examined the content of student messages, Riel (1993) found that the geographic diversity of the Learning Circle participants appeared to enhance student ability to gain insights into the cultures of other participants. In a study that examined the quality of students' writing under two controlled conditions, Cohen and Riel (1989) found “a clear improvement in writing when students wrote to communicate with peers as compared to when they wrote to demonstrate their skill for their teacher's evaluation” (p. 154). Gallini and Helman (1993) replicated this study and achieved similar results.
A case study examination of Learning Circles found that the process allowed teachers to extend local school curriculums by providing ways to extend traditional subjects (Riel, 1992b). This same study also found that students were able to extend their thinking beyond the classroom to draw on family and community resources for information, making them more aware of their social and physical surroundings. Another observed benefit was that teachers and students extended their technical skills with telecomputing as they worked cooperatively with Circle members in distant locations. Furthermore, the same case study analysis of Learning Circles found that teachers benefited from their participation in the Learning Circles by sharing and being exposed to new educational ideas from colleagues in other parts of the world (Riel, 1991, 1992b, 1993).
Learning Circles is an example of how telecollaborative project-based learning can be facilitated through the use of ICT. Learners use computers, communication tools, and networks to facilitate the exchange of information and ICT productivity tools are used to process information, create, exchange, and assess digital artifacts. A vital part of this process and major component of project-based learning is the use of collaborative learning within schools and between schools (Riel, 1996).
Learning Circles is an example of an international telecollaborative program that developed during the late 1980s as a way to promote telecollaborative project work in a constructivist-learning environment. Different classifications of online collaborative projects are a vital area of connection between classes that telecollaborate during Learning Circles and are the source of many teacher expectations. The iEARN Learning Circles project will serve as the background for this inquiry to investigate teachers’ expectations and experiences with various types of telecollaborative projects.
What Are Teachers Expecting?
The previous section looked at different examples of telecollaborative experiences in the literature, this next section addresses the types of expectations teachers might bring to a telecollaborative experience. Teachers establish expectations based on many factors. In this study I will look at how teachers’ expectations for a telecollaborative experience may be based on their level of technology integration, the obstacles they perceive in their use of ICT, their understanding of the function of ICT in project work, and their reasons for using telecollaborative project work. Furthermore, there have been criticisms that have been presented in the literature that have addressed some of the potential problems that teachers may face when they use telecollaborative project work that might also influence the expectations teachers have for its use.
ICT Use in Education
The availability of ICT for use in education has presented teachers with tools to access educational resources and people throughout the educational community. ICT is currently used in schools for a variety of purposes such as record-keeping, internal communication, administrative tasks, presentation, and research needs. Each year the use of ICT continues to become more common, yet its integrated use in day-to-day classroom instruction for activities such as telecollaborative project work remains one of the lower areas of use (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).
In a case study of teacher education foundation courses, Richard (2005) found that much of the disappointment regarding effective ICT integration can be associated with its frequent educational use as an “add on” teaching activity and not as a primary instructional media tool. Currently ICT use continues to center around computer access and predominately focuses on activities such as student rewards, drills for specific skills, and extra-curricular activities (Roberts, 2004). Often methodologies that use ICT tend to follow traditional teaching models even though constructivist models have shown to be potentially more effective (Barab, Kling, & Gray, 2004; Becker & Riel, 1999).
The study of the relationship between ICT and constructivism continues to be a growing area of research. Judson (2006) surveyed and observed classroom teachers in order to determine their beliefs about instruction and found that a teacher who is a more effective user of ICT is more likely to hold constructivist-teaching beliefs. In an assessment of didactic versus constructivist curriculums, Moursund (2003) summarized that the tools of ICT lend themselves to the promotion of constructivist teaching methodologies. Other studies have concluded that teachers are more effective at integrating ICT in teaching when they see tools and resources such as the Internet, multimedia, and other related technologies as being vitally connected to constructivist beliefs of learning, communicating, and applying knowledge (Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Snyder, 2000).
Assessing a Teacher’s Level of Technology Integration
The concern for how teachers use and integrate technology was the focus of the Apple Computer’s Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) project (1995). ACOT was a ten-year longitudinal study that followed teachers for an extended period of time and recorded how they learned to use technology in the classroom. Teachers were supported with computers, software, professional development, and additional support in their implementation of various technology initiatives. The ACOT study found that teachers normally go though orderly stages of change when they begin to use a new educational technology in the classroom.
The researchers classified teachers into fives stages. In the entry stage, teachers begin to learn the basics of the new technology. After this, teachers advance to the adoption stage where they use new technology to support their traditional instructional practices without making and specific changes to those actual practices. The next level of advancement is the adaptation stage. Here teachers thoroughly integrate their use of new technology into traditional classroom practice. This stage is often characterized by the use of productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases, graphic programs, presentation tools, and content-specific software. The next level of advancement is the appropriation stage where teachers understand the use of technology and incorporate it seamlessly into their own work practices and classroom. Their instruction will focus on the use of cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work. Lastly, in the invention stage, teachers will begin to discover, experiment, and design new uses for technology tools and will create projects that incorporate multiple technologies (Apple Computers, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).
The ACOT study found that that two key factors that can enhance a teacher’s progress through the various stages are when teachers and students are given access to technology in the classroom and when teachers are given the opportunity to look at different approaches to teaching and learning. The lesson learned from ACOT is that teachers will progress in their use of technology along a predictable path if they are given the support and tools necessary to make advancements. What remains most troubling is the number of teachers who remain at the adoption phase and do not progress any further (Newhouse, Trinidad, & Clarkson, 2002).
Barriers to Technology Integration
Obstacles that hinder teachers from incorporating practices such as telecollaborative project work into the classroom are associated with the same obstacles that prevent teachers from using technology in general. Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and Woods (1999) proposed that there are two major categories of barriers that prevent teachers from using technology in their classrooms. The first are classified as extrinsic barriers and include items such as lack of access to computers and software, insufficient time to plan instruction, inadequate training, and lack of administrative support. The second category is comprised of intrinsic barriers such as teachers’ beliefs about the fundamental nature of teaching, their beliefs about computers, their adherence to established classroom practices, and their resistance to change.
Research by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2004a) also found similar results while investigating barriers on teachers’ use of ICT. Extrinsic barriers that were most commonly identified were lack of dependable Internet access, curriculum integration training, technical support, and time constraints. Intrinsic barriers that occurred most frequently were teachers’ confidence level, unwillingness to change their teaching practices and the difficulties schools found in being unable to re-organize to facilitate innovative practices involving ICT.
Currently, the education community has been criticized for the disparity between the hype of proposed gains and benefits of educational technology and the reality of performance (Cuban, 2001; Healy, 1998). What appears to be missing is the use of computers and related ICT technology in ways that uniquely promotes and extends learning. Whereas the use of ICT has become thoroughly integrated into the world of business and commerce, it has not achieved its seamless integration throughout the various levels of education. The use of ICT in school along with the integration of constructivist-based teaching methodologies has been targeted by some as an area that has the potential to be a foundation for creating major reforms in instruction and learning (Clouse & Nelson, 2000; Moursund, 2002). The next sections will look at how ICT and the use of constructivist principles have been used to connect students and establish virtual communities of learners.
The Function of ICT in Telecollaborative Project Work
The use of ICT in telecollaborative project-based learning can be found in many phases of the project-based learning process. Initially learners are connected to each other through some type of telecommunications network. Most often this involves the use of a computer and some connection to the Internet. Students may communicate with each other through the use of email messages or an online forum that records all sent messages and responses. Online forums are useful for organizing information and seeing a progression of messages. Asynchronous message delivery systems often are the backbone of telecollaborative projects because they allow learners from all areas of the world to interact, express their ideas, share data, and contribute to the group project (Aviv, Erlich, Ravid, & Geva, 2003). It is also an affordable solution that allows different learners from different socio-economic backgrounds to access information without restrictions of time, location, and online access speed (Hron & Friedrich, 2003). Other communication methods that are also used are directed communication through phone messages, synchronous chats, online collaborative workspaces such as Wikis, and videoconferencing. Communication in a telecollaborative project is a vital element that is ongoing from the beginning of the process until the very end.
The needs and resources of each classroom participating in a project determine other uses of ICT. Computer software and hardware are used to compose, record, and analyze data collected from local sources and remote locations. Students may record written messages, collections of data, digital pictures, video, recorded audio, and other forms of information to use on their own project or to contribute to various phases of the finished project. The resulting project is facilitated by the use of ICT publishing and creation software to record written documents, or presentations that are often given through the use of products such as PowerPoint, PDF files, Mp3 files, video, or other digital formats that can be shared and transmitted online. Even though a variety of software tools can be used to record, publish, and present final products, those final product formats are often restricted to file formats that are cross platform and can be viewed on both Windows and Macintosh operating systems.
ICT becomes a vital tool at every stage of the learning experience. Moursund (2005) argued that ICT can be seen as a powerful agent of change in that it can provide us with mental tools by which we can extend our abilities to produce and process information. This is similar to Jonassen, Carr, and Yueh’s (1999) description of computer-based technologies and programs that foster and facilitate critical thinking as “mindtools.” Examples of ICT functioning as a mindtool can be seen in the way that Internet facilitates global communication and a person’s mental facilities to search, record, and retrieve information can be extended by the use of ICT.
Teacher Expectations for Telecollaborative Project Work
There appears to be a direct relationship between teachers establishing strong expectations for students and their achievement of successful learning (Bamberg, 1994; Cotton 1989; Good & Brophy, 1980; Schilling & Schilling, 1999). Yet it is less clear how the expectations teachers have for a program of learning or a specific methodology such as telecollaborative project work affect the actual experiences of students as well as a teacher’s decision to use telecollaborative project work in the future with students. Rogers, et al. (1990) found that the relationship between teacher expectations and frustrations often were directly related to the learning curve necessitated by using new technologies in the classroom. While investigating the use of telecomputing technology, Rogers, et al. determined that teachers’ expectations are often tied to how they believe it should work and what they hope to accomplish by using it in the classroom. As an example, teachers often experience frustration because they are expecting to quickly establish their presence on a learning network and receive instantaneous and meaningful responses. The result is often that teachers become disappointed when they do not receive a reply or a telecollaborative experience does not follow their preplanned scenario.
Harris (1995) found that teachers working in an online ICT environment often bring their expectations of working in the traditional K-12 teaching environment and attempt to apply them to the telecollaborative environment. This often caused problems because teachers who are experienced with the use of telecomputing tools expect brief, quick, text-based conversations on a frequent basis, whereas a teacher accustomed to the pace of a traditional class may only seek to communicate on a weekly basis. Harris further found that there was often a conflict between a teacher who was an experienced facilitator of telecollaborative work and a teacher who was a newcomer to the process. Experienced teachers were often frustrated by the slow pace and tended to make negative assumptions regarding the commitment and dedication of their less experienced colleagues.
Other examples of the relationship between teachers’ expectations for telecollaborative work and their actual experiences and evaluations can be found with teachers who work internationally on language and cultural projects. Investigations with language classes that telecollaborate have revealed that, before teachers begin a project-work experience, they do establish very definite expectations as part of their learning objectives for students (Ware, 2005). Ware found that when these expectations were not met, they caused tensions between students and caused teachers to re-evaluate the experience for their students. American teachers expecting German students to telecollaborate in the area of language study found their expectations for constant communication and commitment to project work were a source of disappointment (Belz, 2002). O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) found that teacher expectations for telecollaborative work often included references to the types of communication patterns they expected to encounter. Failure to fit into these patterns yielded a phenomena of ten different patterns they termed “failed communications.” Lastly, Basharina (2007) speculated that teacher’s expectations often were influenced by cultural factors and that these had the potential to lead to tensions and misunderstandings that hindered intercultural learning.
Reasons for Students and Teachers To Engage in Telecollaborative Project Work
The most reported benefits of telecollaborative project work are very much aligned with the benefits of the three major components that comprise the methodology: the use of project-based learning, ICT, and telecollaboration. I will discuss studies that support the benefits of each one below.
Project-based Learning
The effectiveness of project-based learning has been studied in a range of educational contexts. These include major educational research as well as teacher testimonials (Moursund, et al., 1997). In K-12 educational settings, the use of project-based learning activities appears to be effective in increasing student motivation, improving student problem-solving, media research skills, collaboration, resource management skills, and higher order thinking skills (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001; Wrigley, 1998). These findings were further confirmed by Thomas (2000) in a detailed assessment of project-based learning where he found gains in student achievement, problem-solving capabilities, understanding of subject matter, as well as other specific skills that were directly related to project-based learning tasks.
Many school systems have become concerned with how students function in society and have established educational goals to teach students how to work individually and in teams to carry out complex tasks (Goldman, 1995). Since real-world problems are almost always interdisciplinary, the use of project-based activities have also been found to be an excellent methodology for helping students learn how to work together to carry out complex, interdisciplinary projects (Katz & Chard, 1989; Markham et al., 2003).
ICT Use
Comprehensive assessments of project-based learning research and evaluations of K-12 instruction, identified evidence of learning gains from combining project-based learning with the use of educational technology (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Ryser, Beeler, & McKenzie, 1995). Technology appeared to provide students with increased skills in the areas of research, organization, language, creativity, and project construction tools that can be vital to successful project work.
Studies conducted by the Department for Education and Skills in England have found that the effects of using ICT for teaching and learning can be measured and do have a positive impact on student success in achieving school standards (Pittard, Bannister, & Dunn, 2003). They further appear to increase student skills in the areas of motivation, presentation, questioning, problem solving, information handling, and techniques of modeling (BECTA, 2002). Learning practices that use ICT also empower students and teachers to develop learning skills for the 21st century (Law, Lee, & Chow, 2002).
According to Schulz-Zander et al. (2002), the combination of problem-oriented, project-based learning with ICT further develops student collaboration skills. The authors concluded that cooperation among students was a major benefit of combining problem-oriented, project-based learning with Internet and communication technology. In fact, they remarked that international cooperation based on the Internet would not have occurred in the learning situations they studied without the use of information and communication technology. Schulz-Zander et al. also found that student motivation and efforts to achieve appeared to increase through the use of collaborative project work.
Telecollaborative Project-based Learning
Naujokaitis (2002) identified four categories of benefit that learners can gain through their participation in project-based telecollaboration. They are interpersonal exchanges, information collection and analysis, problem solving, and publication. According to Naujokaitis, each of these categories contains experiences that can be utilized to develop a specific subset of real-world skills in learners. The category of interpersonal exchange contains skills by which learners can discover how to use various technology-managed communication tools such as e-mail, electronic bulletin boards, listservs, and newsgroups. Learners also learn the rules of online communication through acceptable use and netiquette policies.
Skills that learners can gain from the category of information collection and analysis center around tasks associated with developing electronic library skills. Learners also are exposed to specific skills such as how to navigate informational resources on the Internet, develop search strategies, and evaluate information gained through electronic sources. In addition, learners develop skills in preparing information through the use of word processing, databases, and spreadsheets. Skills learned in the category of problem solving involve learners gaining evaluation, collaboration, creative thinking, and respect for others as they work together on solving problems and creating solutions to problems (Naujokaitis, 2002).
The category of publication includes skills directly related to creating content to be displayed on the Internet or in some other digital format. Some areas learners are exposed to include effective Web page design, digital images, graphics editing, Website programming as well as the many specialized areas of digital presentation development. Naujokaitis (2002) concluded that outside this category framework, telecollaborative project-based learning also teaches learners “constructive criticism, time management, and humility” (p. 3).
When telecollaborative project work was investigated in different types of learning environments, it provided measurable benefits for students. Students in an asynchronous online environment displayed evidence of newly constructed knowledge through their writings and project work (Jamaludin & Lang, 2006). Teenagers who worked in an inquiry-based project that was facilitated by the use of ICT to solve real-world problems grew significantly in their confidence in collaborating online and in using online communication tools for problem solving, developing mentoring strategies, and gaining cultural knowledge (Wang, Poole, Harris, & Wangemann, 2001). Furthermore, when students work together in teams to create projects using a project-based learning methodology, they maximize their computer and collaboration skills (Asan & Haliloglu, 2005). Research conducted by Harrison (1999), Dooling (2000), and Venville, Wallace, Rennie, and Malone (2000) further support the concept that ICT-assisted project-based learning promotes the development of collaboration skills in students.
Telecollaborative project work can also be a catalyst for changing the way teachers design instructional programs. Teachers who participated in a technology and project-based reform effort called Co-NECT increased their use of computers for educational activities, were more likely to use various software programs, involved their students in more Internet projects, and promoted more constructivist student activities (Becker, Wong, & Ravitz, 1999).
Canada's SchoolNet GrassRoots Program. The Conference Board of Canada (2001) conducted research on Industry Canada's SchoolNet GrassRoots Program that offered funding to schools for the creation of innovative, Internet-based interactive learning projects. Research on four case studies on projects undertaken by Canadian schools that were completed under the SchoolNet GrassRoots Program found that GrassRoots projects were “enormously powerful vehicles for engaging and focusing teachers and students in a shared learning experience centered on the use of Information and Communications Technology to accomplish curriculum objectives” (Kitagawa, 2001, p. 11). Among the specific findings derived from the case studies were categories of benefits for teachers and students as well as those that appeared to benefit both.
In the report issued by the Conference Board of Canada (2001), students were seen as progressing from being passive receivers of information to active learners who were visibly engaged in building knowledge through the applications of skills and content needed to accomplish project work. Another benefit for students was the exposure to various uses of technology they gained from the use of computers as an aid to learning and communicating. An overall benefit gained by students through the creation of real products for their projects were preparation skills for transition into the “world of work” (Kitagawa, 2001, p. 16).
The report by the Conference Board of Canada (2001) also found that teachers experienced a sense of empowerment through their ability to choose and construct learning environments for students that were built around the integration of student project work into curricular areas. Teachers found themselves consulting and collaborating with their peers across different subjects and disciplines in order to better integrate learning. An effective pedagogical practice employed by teachers was an increase in reflection and examination of their teaching processes (Conference Board of Canada).
Both teachers and students developed ICT skills through their practical application in the teaching in learning objectives associated with project work (Kitagawa, 2001). ICT was not seen as an abstract concept, separate subject, or curriculum add-on. Through project collaboration and the use of ICT, teachers and students found themselves simultaneously developing each other’s ICT skills. Teachers and students saw ICT as having unique qualities that could be used to design, complete, communicate, and showcase their accomplishments (Conference Board of Canada, 2001). A final benefit for teachers and students was that they became empowered and aware of their role as contributors to the global community of learners. They gained insight into seeing themselves as “a potential resource for gathering and interpreting data, sharing and processing information, growing knowledge, building collaborative alliances and generating useful and broadly applicable insights” (Conference Board of Canada, p. 14).
The evaluative conclusion of the Grassroots online collaborative project was that it enhanced
innovative capacity in the classroom by encouraging collaboration among teachers and between schools, between teachers and students, and between students at different grade levels and in different geographical locations. The result of this collaboration is the growth of teaching and learning exchange networks, which are the pathways of the new “connected” culture (Conference Board of Canada, p. 17).
Three of the most widely described benefits of telecollaborative project-based learning activities for students focused on the benefits students displayed in their writing skills, increased multicultural awareness by being exposed to children from different cultures, and greater competence with real-world ICT skills (Fabos, & Young, 1999; Hutchings & Standley, 2000). Other observed benefits that appeared in the literature highlighted the international component and potential exposure to global cultures that is often associated with telecollaborative project work. Burke, Beach, and Isman, (1997) found that telecollaborative experiences allowed students to extend their learning outside of the school environment. In an examination of the potential benefits of telecollaborative project work, Harris (2002) promoted the idea that telecollaboration was an effective methodology to promote collaborative work among students with different backgrounds. O’Dowd (2003) identified that a major benefit of telecollaborative project work that occurred between students in different countries was that it often exposed students to the cultures of other students through communication and collaborative work. Through her many years of work facilitating projects between classrooms in different countries, Andres (2002) found that telecollaboration provided students with intellectual and emotional growth through interaction with other cultures. In a presentation on the far-reaching effects of telecollaborative project work, Gragert (2002) emphasized that telecollaboration empowers students to take the lead in their own understanding of global perspectives. Furthermore, Brown (2000) saw telecollaborative project work as having the potential for students to extend the influence of the school into the local and world community.
Some strengths of telecollaborative project-based learning are that it provides learners with an experience to gain knowledge and skills within a project area as well as the opportunity to improve general problem solving skills, learning strategies, and ICT skills. Wang, et al. (2001) saw the project phase of telecollaboration as an opportunity for students to experience and develop different problem solving strategies. In addressing the potential for technology skill development, Stuhlmann and Taylor (1998) saw telecollaboration as a way for students to utilize ICT for communication, presentation, and product creation in a real world environment. When learners telecollaborate using project-based learning, they further extend their opportunity to connect to a global wealth of digital and human resources usually not accessible in traditional classrooms.
Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work
Many of the criticisms regarding the value and use of technology in classrooms could also be aimed at the use of telecollaborative project work (Berenfield, 1996b). Even though the issues are varied, the core of the debate centers on whether or not the use of technology actually promotes greater learning than traditional teaching methods (Clark, 2001; Cuban, 2001). There are some researchers who further question the value of using telecollaborative project work and see the reported benefits as being more a matter of “rhetoric” than actual “reality” (Fabos & Young, 1999, p. 217). Common criticisms focus on concerns that: (a) much of the research surrounding the use of telecommunications exchange projects has produced contradictory results, (b) the identification of skill benefits has been overgeneralized and nebulous, (c) the discourse regarding the benefits of global education has been overstated, (d) organizations that promote online collaborative packaged programs are motivated by corporate profit more than educational benefits, and (e) local communities of learning may hold more value for students than global communities (Berenfield, 1996a; Fabos & Young, 2004).
Kenway (1998) expressed a further criticism regarding the value of the information that students exchange when he asked: “What is the quality of the information and the ‘interactions’ offered to students by interactive technologies? What sorts of knowledge are they offered? Whose knowledge is it and what does it say to them about who they are, how they should behave, and what they should value?” (p. 88).
There are further issues that have arisen regarding the use of telecollaborative project work with students engaged in international learning partnerships. In fact, telecollaboration may not always produce the results that educators are seeking (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). Tensions can occur when students take opposite positions in discussion about cultural values (O’Dowd, 2003). When communication differences among students do occur they can drastically interfere with project work. These difficulties are often very difficult to resolve because personal relationships have not been firmly established between students in partnering schools (Belz, 2001; 2003). Furthermore, students have been known to display avoidance strategies and simply stop communicating (Ware, 2003).
In a report that addressed issues associated with the problems of classes working together, Harris (2000) identified even more specialized concerns of telecollaborative project work. Some common problems are that results have at times shown that classes have a low success rate with project completion. Other problems that have been identified are generally associated with “the learning activity’s larger context, planning process, or logistical specifics” (Harris, 2000, p. 59). Many of the issues often are associated with the actual amount of time needed to communicate and complete projects. Very often teachers underestimate the amount of time needed to fully complete a telecollaboration activity. Telecollaborative project work has been known at times to become more of a frustrating experience for students and teachers than a beneficial learning experience (Harris, 2000).
As teachers have been encouraged to integrate the use of ICT technology in the classroom, there is a growing concern as to how teachers actually use the technology and whether or not it actually promotes student learning. Investigations have found that teachers can be classified as to their level of technology use. Teachers at the beginning levels tend to use technology to support their current modes of instruction while teachers in more advanced levels promote innovative uses of technology such as telecollaborative project work that allow students to create projects that integrate multiple uses of ICT. Teachers do encounter barriers and, whether real or perceived, they will affect a teachers’ ability to integrate the use of technology in a classroom. In any investigation of telecollaborative project work, it will be important to understand their level of technology integration and any barriers the teachers encounter.
Teacher expectations have a direct relationship to student learning, but the role that teacher expectations play in affecting the experiences of students in telecollaborative project work is not clear. It is possible that some teachers may have shaped students’ experiences based on past accounts and testimonials from other teachers as well as the criticisms they have heard. The expectations that teachers bring to telecollaborative work may arise from their level of technology integration, perceived barriers to using technology, experience with using various forms of ICT, as well as learning objectives that they have established for their students before they begin their online experience. Some expectations have been shown to lead to frustrations and outcomes that were not considered before project work began. It is the search to understand these expectations, experiences, and perceptions that will form the core of this investigation.
There are many factors that contribute to shaping teachers expectations for a telecollaborative experience. My inquiry will seek to investigate major areas that have been identified in the literature. Teachers who integrate technology in their classrooms generally understand the benefits and limitations; I will be looking to see how a teacher’s prior experience and comfort level with using ICT influences their expectations and participation. Since various uses of ICT often play a major part in the telecollaboration process, I will be looking to see if this plays any part in changing their expectations as the process evolves during the course of a project. Previous investigations have identified benefits associated with the use of ICT, project-based learning, and telecollaborative project-based learning. I will be looking to determine which benefits teachers expect to gain as they engage in project work. Furthermore, I will be seeking to determine if teachers actually realize their expectations during their experience and to what extent these expectations characterize their overall experience and contribute to their future participation. Lastly, there have been various criticisms directed toward telecollaborative project work. I will be seeking to understand if the issues and concerns expressed in the criticisms actually manifest themselves and affect teachers’ expectations, actual experience, and future participation.
Ethnographic Analysis of Telecollaborative Project Work
The current state of telecollaborative project work has evolved through the efforts of dedicated educators, researchers, advocates, and support organizations. There is much literature on why teachers should engage their students in telecollaborative project work and many guidelines on what the experience should be like. What remain to be understood are expectations, attitudes, processes, strategies, and outcomes that teachers and student engage in during these projects.
My investigation focused on examining a group of teachers who were involved in a telecollaborative project called Learning Circles. I sought to understand all the factors that have brought them to want to participate in this telecollaborative project experience. Teachers engaged their students in this learning experience for a variety of reasons and there were expectations they were hoping to gain for their students through these learning experiences. These expectations played a role in how they approached, perceived, and evaluated every aspect of their project experience. I sought to understand their expectations and experiences as they participated in an actual project. I anticipated that some would see their expectations fulfilled, others would change their expectations, and still others would not realize them at all. In the end teachers would either decide this was a valuable experience for students or not something that fulfilled their educational needs. It was their expectations, experience, and conclusions that I sought to understand.
CHAPTER 3: METHOD
This chapter provides a description of the research design and approach. Details of the study’s research method are presented that include the conceptual framework, the research focus, data collection strategies, data analysis procedures, as well as the limitations of the methods used in this study.
Research Purpose and Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that lead teachers to use telecollaborative project work with students. The significance of the findings will be a better understanding of explicit and implicit expectations that motivate educators to engage in telecollaborative project work, and the benefits teachers find for their students and themselves. Understanding the experiences of teachers as they participate in telecollaborative project work will help to address why some teachers find value in their experience and continue participation while others abandon the practice. This investigation might also reveal new strategies or practices that will be of value to organizations that support telecollaboration.
This study was guided by investigating the following research questions:
1. What are the expectations teachers have for their students and themselves that motivate them to use telecollaborative project work in a K-12 school setting?
a. How do these expectations change over time as teachers and students participate in a telecollaborative project?
b. What do teachers believe they and their students have gained by participating in a telecollaborative project?
c. What are the suggestions of teachers on changes that could be made to telecollaborative project experiences to improve their future participation?
2. To what degree do teachers’ level of technology integration, use of project-based learning methods, and collaboration, as well as the obstacles and enablers they work with affect their expectations and participation in a telecollaborative project?
3. What are the experiences of teachers as they use telecollaborative project work in a K-12 school setting that influence their future participation?
Research Design and Method
The design of the study was exploratory and descriptive (Yin, 1993, 2003) in order to capture the experiences of the participants and identify the factors that influenced their decisions. In this study the phenomenon was the experience of teachers using telecollaborative project work in the context of an online project called Learning Circles.
The case being studied (or bounded system) (Creswell, 1998) was a group of 57 teachers who sought to participate in an online project. There were three levels of organization represented by these teachers. First, the teachers represented, collectively, all the teachers who were participating in one session of Learning Circles on the International Education and Resource Network (iEARN). As noted in Figure 1, Learning Circles is just one of many projects sponsored by iEARN. The second level of organization occurred when teachers chose one of four separate project themes. The third level was that of the individual Circles that consisted of six to eight classrooms grouped around a common project theme and age classification of students (elementary, middle, or high school).
Figure 1. The Levels of Organization of iEARN Project Work
Those teachers engaged in Learning Circles for one session were used to provide data on expectations and outcomes. In addition to this data, one Circle was identified to explore more deeply the process of interactions both between the schools and in the classrooms. Each level of study informed the other. The timeframe was a session of the Learning Circles project that began in September of 2008 and ended in January of 2009.
My approach to investigating the research questions was to conduct an instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) to provide insight into understanding how teachers’ expectations influenced their experience and participation in telecollaborative project work. A case study is an inquiry approach that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1981). A typical Learning Circles project goes through different phases and presents many challenges from beginning to completion that are very closely linked to the context of accomplishing telecollaborative project work. It was anticipated that since the experience of each of the participants would change over the course of their involvement with a project, a prolonged inquiry into their expectations, successes, and challenges would provide a rich source of information (Patton, 2002).
The teachers who were involved in this study represented classrooms from various regions around the world and were brought together by their desire to participate in a telecollaborative experience. This investigation focused on the experience of a small project group but utilized the larger group of teachers to confirm and triangulate findings that emerged. The design of this study allowed for an investigation of how their expectations for participation initially developed, progressed, changed, and were realized (or not realized). It also provided insight into how their actual experiences shaped their decision about whether to participate in the future or not.
Research Focus and Paradigm
The theoretical framework of research influences the way it is studied and interpreted, this is often called the paradigm of the research (Mertens, 2005). For this study, the paradigm followed an interpretivist framework for the following reasons: (a) the purpose was to understand the world of a specific group of teachers; (b) the findings from the study were the result of the interactions between the researcher and the participants in the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Highlen & Finley, 1996); and (c) since the focus of a study was on understanding and interpretation, an interpretivist framework allowed me to apply personal experience and prior knowledge rather than just being a detached observer (Carson et al., 2001). I approached this study from a constructivist viewpoint with the understanding that there were multiple realities and that no one construct of reality could hold more value than another (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Patton, 2002). Each construct of reality presented in this study represented the understanding and viewpoints of the participants in the study (Merriam, 1998).
My case study was built using layers of information to provide a foundation for qualitative analysis and reporting (Patton, 2002). The goal of the descriptions in this study was to provide the reader with potential points of commonality or connection that could be used to establish transferability of understanding (Eisner, 1991; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). I sought to follow Patton’s (2002) idea that a study based on “information-rich samples and designs” would allow for extrapolations that were “modest speculations on the likely applicability of findings to other situations under similar, but not identical, conditions” (p. 584).
Data Collection
Research Site and Participants
The research site for this study was an online environment that was centered on a telecollaborative project called Learning Circles. iEARN sponsors the Learning Circles project for two sessions a year: September to January and January to May. This investigation took place during the September 2008 to January 2009 session. The Learning Circles project was open to all iEARN members, domestic and international. All communication was in English. Teachers expressed interest in the project by completing an online registration form (see Appendix A) that asked for teacher contact information, class size, age level of students, and project interest. This information was collected in a central database that was maintained by iEARN. The Learning Circles Project Coordinator used this information to develop cooperative working groups called Circles. Once a Circle of 6 to 8 classrooms was formed, participants communicated with each other by sending messages to an online forum that had been specifically created for their Circle. These forums automatically distributed posted messages to every other member of the Circle. Some participants also chose to use the online forum to access their messages, post messages, post documents, or locate a past message. All messages posted to the Circle forum were saved for the duration of the project and then archived for potential access after the project was finished. As the Learning Circles Coordinator, I had access to all the messages that were posted through the iEARN online forums.
Participants for my research were sought from the group of teachers who signed up for the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles. Based on a pilot study I conducted during the January to May 2008 session of Learning Circles and my prior experience with Learning Circles, I believed that I would find participants who were new to telecollaborative project work and those who had experience. In order to seek interested participants I posted a notice in iEARN newsletters, the Learning Circles Website, and iEARN registration Web page stating that I was conducting research on Learning Circles beginning in September 2008. I also indicated that there would be incentives for participants who fully participated in all phases of the research. These incentives included a drawing for an Apple iPod for the small group and another iPod for the larger group of teachers. In all locations, I thoroughly announced that all participation in the research was voluntary and that a person could still fully participate in Learning Circles while not participating in the research. I also made it clear that the lack of participation in the research would not affect anyone’s ability to participate in the Learning Circles project in any way.
Data collection for the small group case study and large group survey study were limited to teachers who participated in the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles and were iEARN members. Since Learning Circles is sponsored by iEARN, teachers were required to be members in order to enroll in the project. Based on my past experience with the Learning Circles project, I anticipated that the September 2008 through January 2009 Learning Circles registration process would yield 60 to 75 teachers who would be interested in participating in telecollaborative project work. The actual number of teachers who volunteered for the first online survey was 57 out of 61 potential participants. These teachers represented classrooms that fell into three general age levels. At each age level a classroom had the opportunity to choose one broad project category theme for participation. Table 4 illustrates the choices for each classroom:
Table 4
Learning Circle Age Levels and Project Choices
|Choice of Age Level |Choice of Projects |
|Elementary |Computer Chronicles |
|Middle School |Places and Perspectives |
|High School |Mindworks |
| |My Hero |
The choice of which Circle projects actually run is always based on the number of participants who sign up for each project. Participants were asked to give a second and third choice in case their first choice did not have enough interested participants. The actual projects that ran during the session covered by the research are presented in Table 5.
Table 5
Actual Projects for the September 2008 Session of Learning Circles
|Learning Circles Projects |
|Elementary Places and Perspectives (also included participants interested in Computer Chronicles) |
|Middle School Places and Perspectives 1 |
|Middle School Places and Perspectives 2 |
|Middle School Computer Chronicles (also included participants interested in Mindworks) |
|Middle School My Hero (also included Elementary classrooms) |
|High School Places and Perspectives 1 |
|High School Places and Perspectives 2 |
|High School Computer Chronicles |
|High School Mindworks |
|High School My Hero |
For my investigation, I identified the following criteria as being desirable for an investigative group. Since I was seeking a purposive sample, I was looking for a Learning Circles group that would typify the experience of most participants (Riel, 1992b). I was seeking a group that was (a) on an elementary or middle school level, (b) had some diversity in country representation (typically for middle school, two classrooms from North American and 4 to 6 classrooms from various regions around the world or 4 to 5 classrooms from North America and two classrooms from other countries for elementary school, and (c) was a mix of new and experienced participants.
The Learning Circles group that was selected for the project was a group of seven participants who registered for either the elementary Computer Chronicles or Places and Perspectives Circles. Five of the teachers were from the United States, one teacher was from Morocco, and the other teacher was from Slovenia. Five of the teachers were new to Learning Circles and had limited experience with telecollaborative work. The other two teachers were teachers who had extensive experience with Learning Circles.
Role of the Researcher
In the context of a case study, building trust between the participants and the researcher is a major concern (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This is something that often takes a great deal of time to achieve. I have been a participant is the Learning Circles project since 1988 and have an established role as the Coordinator for the Learning Circles project for the past three years. I believed that my immersion in the project provided me with unique access to all aspects of the project. Also, the trust and reputation I have gained with the participants allowed me to observe and question participants with a high level of openness and honesty.
As the Coordinator of the Learning Circles project, my contact with participants could be characterized as mainly passive. Generally, my primary role is to organize the Circle groups according to grade level and project choices indicated by the participants when they register. Once the Circles are determined, my role is to send out project update messages and provide online resources for all participants. I do not contact participants directly unless they ask for specific help or assistance.
Schatzman and Strauss (1973) contended that a researcher should carefully examine the role he/she plays in the observation process. Creswell (1998) also identified some concerns regarding researchers conducting studies in which they were a part of the environment. Considering all this, I believed that it was best to continue my role as Project Coordinator and passively observe the interaction and exchange of messages that transpired between participants. When I needed to act as a part of the online project process, I was careful to make sure that it was initiated by a participant request.
Sources of Data
In order to build my case study for this inquiry, I used surveys, interviews, and message exchanges (Hoepfl, 1997). This study began with an identification of participants through the use of a Pre-Survey that included participant background information, self-ratings on their use of project-based learning, and responses to open-ended questions. Since I was using a case-within-a-case methodology, two groups were determined. The larger case was comprised of all 59 participants who volunteered to participate in the research. From this larger case, a smaller group of seven teachers was identified to participate in one Circle experience. It was this single Learning Circle group that was the focus of the smaller case study.
I then proceeded to conduct semi-structured interviews with the seven participants in the small group case study. After this I analyzed messages that were exchanged among participants. These messages were sent as emails posted in the online discussion forums, documents attached to the email messages, or media files posted in iEARN’s online collaboration forum. Some participants preferred to send messages as text emails and other participants preferred to send their messages as documents that were attached to emails. They used documents because these allowed them to compose longer messages offline and minimize their time when they were connected to the Internet. The small case study group also participated in all the online surveys that were given to the large group. This survey data collected from the small case study group provided a further source of information.
In addition to this primary source of information, I also utilized the larger group of participants through the use of surveys, email messages, messages that were posted in the online discussion forums, documents that were attached to email messages, and documents that were posted in iEARN’s online collaboration forum to cross check patterns, categories, and themes that emerged and provide another layer of information.
Surveys
In general, the purpose of the surveys used in this study was to collect a combination of qualitative and quantitative information (Creswell, 2003). All participants who registered for the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles were sent an invitation to participate email message (see Appendix B) that contained a link to an initial online Pre-Survey (see Appendix C). Consent for participating in the initial Pre-Survey and the case studies was sought in the beginning of process. The main page of the Pre-Survey contained information on the study and listed the rights of participants. Participants provided their email address to confirm consent. All participants for this study were volunteers and had the opportunity to withdraw at any time. When information was reported in the final report of this study, generic titles such as Teacher A, Teacher B, and so forth were used for participating teachers in order to protect the identity of the participants and to comply with the Human Subjects Protocol of Lehigh University.
Through the use of the initial Pre-Survey, I collected information on teacher backgrounds, their reasons for participating in Learning Circles, and their desired learning outcomes. I also used the information collected through the initial survey to develop descriptive statistics, identify teachers’ level of technology integration, determine teachers’ level of project-based learning use, and to provide a basis for determining participants for my case study Circle. Interim Surveys (see Appendix D) were administered to all participants at week five and week ten. An announcement (see Appendix E) was sent at the end of the project asking participants to provide an overall assessment of their experience. After this a Post Survey (see Appendix F) was administered at the conclusion of the project.
On the interim and final surveys, each participant was asked to rate his/her expectations using a Likert-type scale, whether or not his/her expectations changed, and his/her overall experience. Participants were also given the opportunity to write in additional information or to provide comments. The purpose of this data collection was to track any changes that occurred over the course of the session.
Interviews
After participants were identified for the small group case study, a consent email (see Appendix G) was sent to provide the participants with a list of activities and estimated time commitments I would be seeking from their participation. An initial round of interviews followed this. A protocol was developed for interviewing each case study participant that consisted of asking a predetermined set of questions (see Appendix H) and then following up these questions with further probing questions based on the responses of the participants (Merriam, 1998). The questions were grouped into three discussion threads that paralleled the themes developed for the research questions. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Each transcript was then saved in a separate word processing file.
Three methods were made available to the participants in order to provide them with an option that best allowed them to communicate and express themselves. In order of preference, I first sought to have a person-to-person interview through the use of a phone interview or Skype communication software. If neither of these options was viable for a participant, I then decided I could provide the participant with a written document and allow them to provide answers in written form. All the participants who participated in the interview process chose either a phone or Skype person-to-person interview.
The content of the initial case study interviews and messages provided the basis for future follow-up interviews. Additional update interviews were conducted with the case study participants on an as needed basis through the use of email messages and occasional telephone interviews. Case study participants were given the opportunity to talk about their experiences, successes, and frustrations. They could also assess their expectations and readjust them if necessary.
Message Exchanges
The messages I examined were those sent by teachers as part of the Learning Circles online exchange of information. The content of these messages ranged from anything such as teachers describing themselves, their family, their students, and their working environment to teachers giving progress reports on the projects sponsored by their students. The purpose in examining these messages was to look at what the participants were actually saying and describing to other participants. In the past, I have found that the teachers in Learning Circles share information about themselves, their schools, and their project experience through these messages. I was looking to see how frequently teachers sent messages, and I analyzed the content of the messages in order to understand their experience from their perspective and through their own words (Hoepfl, 1997).
In addition to actually examining the content of the messages exchanged by teachers, as the Coordinator for the Learning Circles project, I was also able to utilize two of the four strategies that Hoeplf (1997) identified for gathering information though observation: passive observation and limited interaction. First, I was able to passively examine the interaction and exchange of messages that transpired between participants. This included communication and behavioral patterns. This information was then used to report on what actually happened during a Learning Circles experience. Observations of teachers’ posting behavior was used because it held the potential to show agreement or discrepancies between participants’ expressed thoughts and ideas and their actual behavior. Examples of this that have occurred during previous sessions of Learning Circles were seen when participants expressed that they were looking for online conversations as an expectation for the Learning Circles process, but in actuality they never initiated conversations or participated in opportunities when they arose.
Secondly, my participation also included limited interaction, but this was only used when the participants initiated it or if there was a need to clarify information. An example of this occurred during the pilot study when a teacher dropped out of the process, but did not inform the group or the Circle facilitator. Participants were curious about the lack of communication by this participant and asked me about her status. I notified the participants that the silent participant would not be participating. Even though I was part of the exchange of information it did not interfere in any way with the progress of the Circle. Furthermore, the question was initiated by the participants and was a normal action that might occur during telecollaborative project process.
My experience with Learning Circles in the past has shown that groups tend to exhibit very distinct communication patterns, and that teachers tend to be careful with messages that are posted for an entire group to read. Adding an examination of message exchanges to the information collected during interviews helped to provide a layer of deeper understanding to naturalistic data collection (Hoepfl, 1997). It was these patterns of communication, subtleties of behavior, as well as a rich description of the learning environment that were the focus of my message analysis.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed as it was collected using the grounded theory approach (Glaser, 1992). My research setting was an online environment that consisted of a group of teachers exchanging messages and working together to guide students in creating collaborative project work using ICT. I collected data from the teachers from the beginning of the project through the use of interviews, surveys, and message analysis. Constant comparison and theoretical sampling were used to support the discovery of theory regarding teacher expectations and telecollaboration from my collected data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Grounded theory was used because I was attempting to derive theories based on the data I collect from my observations of the small case study Learning Circles group.
Information regarding teacher expectations was initially collected through interviews and surveys. I anticipated that teachers would describe various behaviors and events that they were hoping to achieve through their participation in Learning Circles. As information was collected, I analyzed it for categories of behaviors and events. These were identified and named using an open coding procedure (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). These codes were compared to look for consistencies and differences of expectations expressed by the participants. Common language, characteristics, or concepts between items were used to establish categories. As categories emerged, coding continued until there were no new categories.
It was anticipated that main categories or dominant themes would emerge from the initial collection of data. Axial coding was used to develop main categories and their sub-categories. Selective coding was then used to integrate the main categories and to develop theoretical frameworks on teacher expectations and their function and impact on telecollaborative project work (Strauss & Corbin). Further information collected through the Interim and Post Surveys was also analyzed to confirm that teacher expectations continued or changed. The Post Survey was used to evaluate whether or not teachers realized their expectations. Participant messages posted through email and in the online discussion forums was also analyzed and coded to look for emerging categories of correspondence that supported comments and behaviors teachers expressed regarding their expectations.
Data Collection Cycle
The collection of data for this study began with the registration process for Learning Circles (see Table 6). The start date for the project was established as September 30, 2008. The registration process for the project began in early August and was targeted to end on September 15, 2008. In actuality, the registration process was extended into the last two weeks of September in order to accommodate late inquiries. This has been a common practice in past sessions of Learning Circles.
Table 6
Data Collection and Analysis Cycle
|Task |Tool or Form |Whole |Small |
| | |Group |Group |
|1. Teacher registration information |Online Registration Form |X | |
|2. Administer the initial information teachers survey |Pre-Survey |X | |
|3. Identify participants for case study through online survey|Pre-Survey |X | |
|information | | | |
|4. Conduct small group interviews |Phone and email | |X |
|5. Validity checks after each interview session |Phone and email | |X |
|6. Follow up interviews as needed |Phone and email | |X |
|7. Interim update interviews by email and phone every two |Phone and email | |X |
|weeks | | | |
|8. Interim survey and open-ended questions at weeks 5 and 10 |Interim Surveys I and II |X | |
|9. Record observations of group interactions and patterns of |Email, Online Postings | |X |
|behavior | | | |
|10. Collect examples of online postings, discussions, and |Email, Online Postings | |X |
|email exchanges | | | |
|11. Collect examples of posted student work and finished |Email, Online Postings | |X |
|projects | | | |
|12. Administer Post Survey |Post Survey |X | |
|13. Conduct post interviews (as needed) |Phone and email | |X |
One goal in the initial collection of consent and survey data was to find an elementary or middle school group of teachers who fit the criteria I had established for my case study Circle. After participants for the case study were identified, they were contacted by email and again asked to reconfirm their willingness to participate, provide a telephone contact number, and identify a preferred interview time.
Participants were interviewed using a semi-structured interview question strategy that was centered on the research questions proposed for this study. These questions were used as a general guideline for the interviews, but in some instances they were not needed or did not apply to the participant. As other questions arose based on the responses of the participants, they were pursued to probe further and provide other interesting avenues of information. Follow up communication questions and clarifications were conducted using email messages.
In addition to interviewing participants, I made detailed observations of the actions and interactions of the participants as they engaged in correspondence with other participants. All their messages were saved as text files and printed for analysis.
The data gathering cycle was followed by a cycle (see Table 7) that included validation, further data gathering, and analysis (Stake, 1995). The analysis cycle began with the initial background information surveys and continued through the interview and observation phases. Following the interpretivist framework discussed earlier in this section, the data collection and analysis cycles continued as each new source of information was collected. Participants had the opportunity to report changes in their thinking and to share additional information during the interviews and surveys. These proved to be rich sources of information that allowed me to further understand their experience and thoughts.
Table 7
Analysis Cycle
|Tool or Form |Task |Whole |Small |
| | |Group |Group |
|Initial Survey |Assemble raw case data |X |X |
| |Organize, classify, and edit raw case data |X |X |
| |Analyze and code data for concepts, typologies, and themes |X |X |
| |Identify patterns, categories, and themes |X |X |
|Initial Interviews and Follow-up |Assemble raw case data | |X |
|Interviews | | | |
| |Organize, classify, and edit raw case data | |X |
| |Analyze and code data for concepts, typologies, and themes | |X |
| |Identify patterns, categories, and themes | |X |
|Interim Update Interviews |Identify consistencies and changes of expectations | |X |
|Interim Surveys |Assemble raw case data |X |X |
| |Organize, classify, and edit raw case data |X |X |
| |Analyze and code data for concepts, typologies, and themes |X |X |
| |Identify patterns, categories, and themes |X |X |
| |Identify consistencies and changes of expectations |X |X |
|Observations of Participant |Identify patterns, categories, and themes | |X |
|Behavior | | | |
| |Identify consistencies and changes of expectations | |X |
| |Draw conclusions and interpret findings according to emerging | |X |
| |issues | | |
|Messages |Analyze and code data for concepts, typologies, and themes | |X |
| |Identify patterns, categories, and themes | |X |
| |Identify consistencies and changes of expectations | |X |
| |Draw conclusions and interpret findings according to emerging | |X |
| |issues | | |
|Post Survey |Assemble raw case data |X |X |
| |Organize, classify, and edit raw case data |X |X |
| |Analyze and code data for concepts, typologies, and themes |X |X |
| |Identify patterns, categories, and themes |X |X |
| |Identify consistencies and changes of expectations |X |X |
| |Draw conclusions and interpret findings according to emerging |X |X |
| |issues | | |
|Post Interviews |Identify consistencies and changes of expectations | |X |
| |Draw conclusions and interpret findings according to emerging | |X |
| |issues | | |
Pilot Study
During the January to May 2008 session of Learning Circles I conducted a pilot study to test various aspects of my proposed research process such as the procedure for identifying participants for a case study group, the survey instruments, interview process, and message analysis procedure. I identified a group of 7 participants that matched the characteristics I was looking for my small case study group. Two of the teachers were from the United States, one was from Mexico, one from Belarus, and three from Russia. This group provided me with the diversity of perspectives I was looking for.
The pilot study research group was made up of Middle School teachers who were interested in participating in the Places and Perspectives group. Since a total of sixteen teachers registered for Middle School Places and Perspectives I was able to separate the teachers who volunteered to participate in the research project into their own group. I named this group Places and Perspectives Middle School Research. The name of the group had no significance except that made it easier for the participants to distinguish their online discussion forum from the non-research group that was called Places and Perspectives Middle School 1. During the pilot study I did not work with the large group, but I did test the survey instruments they would be using with the small case study group.
I continued in my role as the coordinator for Learning Circles during the pilot study. There did not appear to be any conflicts between my position as coordinator and my role as researcher. My position did provide me with complete access to all the participant messages and it did create a comfort level that allowed the participants to openly discuss their experience with me. My conversations with the participants led me to believe that the participants only viewed my role as the coordinator for the project, and did clearly view the project as one of many telecollaborative projects sponsored by iEARN. They did not see it as my project and they did not necessarily view me as a member of the iEARN administrative staff. iEARN has many educator-sponsored projects with educators helping others participate in projects. The fact that I did not initially create Learning Circles allowed teachers to feel comfortable sharing their views in an open and honest way. In their responses to my interviews and in their answers to the surveys, they gave responses that were both supportive and critical. There was no reason for me to suspect that their responses were anything less than candid and honest.
Testing of Surveys
All surveys were tested during the pilot study. In general, the questions on the survey elicited the type of information that I was seeking. There were two changes made to the Pre-Survey that are worth noting. A few wording changes were made on the Pre-Survey so that the questions distinguished between expectations for students and teachers. Even though the initial questions used the terms student expectations and teacher expectations, two of the seven teachers displayed a tendency to always express their responses in terms of student expectations. It was also decided that more detailed information should be collected on each teacher’s approach to using project-based teaching methods in the classroom (see Appendix C). Information collected during the pilot study suggested that this could be an area of emerging interest, but more information would be needed to assess the extent to which each teacher was using this practice with students in association with telecollaborative project work.
In order to collect this information, teachers were asked to rate their classroom practice on ten different areas associated with the use of project-based learning methodologies. Categories were developed based on the 7 Dimensions Checklist developed for the Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project sponsored by the San Mateo County Office of Education (1999) as well as characteristics identified in the literature. The goal of these questions was to develop a rating and a descriptive profile of teachers that indicated the degree to which they used teaching practices associated with project-based teaching methods.
The project-based learning with technology profile was shared with two experts in this area who had an extensive background with instructing, evaluating, publishing, and presenting on this topic. Both experts believed that a teacher who scored a number closer to 50 was more likely to understand and be applying the principles of project-based learning with technology in their classrooms. Teachers with lower scores would most likely be using traditional teaching methods and would either not be using project-based learning with technology or would not be aware of teaching methodologies that used these principles. The two experts did caution that the profile would best measure teachers who were specifically using project-based learning with technology rather than teachers who were just using project-based learning. They also suggested that one of the identifiers might also be used to indicate if teachers were more inclined to use problem-based methodologies as opposed to project-based methodologies.
Testing of the Interview Process
The interview process and questionnaire instrument were tested during the pilot study. An interview was requested of the seven teachers who volunteered for the pilot case study and the three interview options were presented. One teacher opted for a phone interview and another for a Skype interview. Three teachers requested a written interview and two teachers did not respond to the request for an interview even though they indicated they would do so. These two teachers did participate in the online surveys with no additional prompting. The phone and Skype interviews were successful and allowed for immediate follow-up questions. Both interviews were recorded with the permission of the interviewee and were transcribed into a written document. This document was then sent back to the participant to clarify responses that were unclear on the tape recording and for member checking. A comparison of the interview gathering procedures showed that they all allowed me to collect the type of information I was seeking. The responses collected on the written interview used fewer words, but were more direct and to the point. The phone and Skype interview yielded more wordy responses, but essentially yielded the same content. One advantage of the phone and Skype interviews was that they did allow me to follow interesting responses with instant follow-up questions. Follow-up questions were also pursued from the written interviews and promptly answered by the participants. An examination of the goals of the research and the questionnaire showed a need to add three questions that addressed the participant’s approach to teaching and familiarity with project-based learning methodologies.
Testing the Message Analysis Process
The message analysis process was tested during the pilot study. These messages proved to be a rich source of information and the posting behavior of the participants did reveal patterns of behavior. No changes were made to the process, but it was discovered that one of the participants opted to post teacher thoughts and gather student work using a blog hosted on an outside source. Prior to this, all the information that was exchanged was recorded in the iEARN online Learning Circles discussion forum. The use of the outside information collection source produced some degree of confusion for the participants and me when messages made reference to comments posted on the blog. I identified that I would need to make allowances for messages exchanged and posted on outside resources since it was likely that future teachers may use a blog or a Wiki for posting and gathering information.
My coding procedures were tested as part of the pilot study I conducted during the January to May 2008 session of Learning Circles. Clear categories emerged from the responses given by the participants. Teachers were able to identify specific expectations they had for their participation for their students and themselves. These included teacher expectations for their students in the areas of communication and experiencing culture. Other categories that emerged were in skill development areas such as: ICT use, inquiry strategies, and project work. The expansion of English language skills was also identified by teachers from countries where English was not the primary language of students. Categories of teacher expectations that emerged were teachers seeking ideas from other teachers in the areas of teaching strategies, project management, and the use of ICT. Teachers also expressed expectations for developing collegial connections that would last beyond the end of the project. Teachers, who did not speak English as their primary language, also had expectations for developing their English language skills by communicating with other educators. These major expectation themes teachers had for students and themselves could further be seen in teachers’ correspondence with other teachers during the course of the project and the exchange of information.
Validity and Trustworthiness of the Data
There have been various criticisms leveled at qualitative research suggesting that it often lacks rigor and does not meet the tests of quality associated with quantitative research (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Patton (2002) stated, “It all depends on criteria. Judging quality requires criteria. Credibility flows from those judgments. Quality and credibility are connected in that judgments of quality constitute the foundation for perceptions of credibility” (p. 542). In order to enhance the credibility and quality of my study I have chosen to follow the guidelines presented by Erlandson et al. (1993) who proposed that trustworthiness and authenticity are two pieces of criteria that can be used to assess the results and processes of qualitative inquiry. Each of these areas is addressed below.
Trustworthiness
In order to establish trustworthiness in my research, I identified procedures to address the indicators identified by Guba and Lincoln (1994). These include: (a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability.
Credibility
Erlandson et al. (1993) called credibility the degree to which a study demonstrates its “truth value” (p. 29). Patton (2002) stated that credibility in qualitative inquiry depends on three elements: (a) rigorous methods, (b) the credibility of the researcher, and (c) the philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry. In order to establish credibility and rigor, I used the following procedures in my study:
• A prolonged engagement with the project site from initial registration to final completion of all project elements.
• Careful recording of data that included screening the data for internal and external consistency.
• Use of member checking procedures for interviews and final case reporting in order to ensure that my understanding was consistent with my participants’ perceptions and experiences.
• Triangulation of data, data sources, and methods to bring more depth to the study.
Transferability
Transferability is a term Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggested was a better fit for qualitative findings than the term generalization. Part of their reasoning for this was the understanding that the existence of local conditions makes it extremely difficult to generalize (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They also identified transferability as the degree to which a study can help to facilitate a reader’s application of the findings. The understanding is that the researcher cannot determine the transferability of any given research, but rather can only provide a sufficient amount of information so that the reader can determine if the findings have some application to their new situation (Cronbach, 1975). In order to establish transferability, I used the following procedures in my study to allow readers to make connections and to find characteristics similar to their own experiences:
• Use of thick description and contextual information.
• Writing from the participants’ point of view.
• Use of purposive sampling to provide realistic background situations.
Dependability
Lincoln and Guba (1985) addressed the issue of dependability by declaring that “Since there can be no validity without reliability (and thus no credibility without dependability), a demonstration of the former is sufficient to establish the latter”
(p. 316). Schwandt (1997) expressed that one way to ensure dependability in qualitative inquiry was to make sure that the process was “logical, traceable, and documented” (p. 164). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed that one process that would promote dependability would be to have reviewers audit both the process and the product of the research to check for consistency. In order to establish dependability I used the following procedures in my study:
• Logical, traceable, and categorized documentation of data.
• Thorough records of data categories, sources, and coding procedures.
• The use of an audit trail that could be used for a third party, external review.
• Triangulation of data to identify multiple sources of information.
Confirmability
Lincoln and Guba (1985) used the term “confirmability” to “refer to the degree to which the researcher can demonstrate the neutrality of the research interpretations” (Hoepfl, 1997, p. 60). Patton (2003) used the term “emphatic neutrality” to suggest that the established researcher be non-judgmental and seek to report findings in a balanced manner (p. 50). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed that this evidence of trustworthiness could be established by providing evidence that the inquiry data could be traced directly to its source rather than the beliefs, opinions, or expectations of the researcher. To establish confirmability in my study I established the use of:
• An audit trail that could be used by a third party, external review to determine that findings were not based on my biases and preconceptions.
• Linking documentation that would allow data and interpretations to be traced back to actual transcripts.
• Documentation of data analysis through the use of database categories and themes.
Authenticity Criteria
Guba and Lincoln (1994) developed a series of authenticity criteria as an additional evaluation component for a constructivist inquiry study beyond the methodological qualities they identified in trustworthiness. The rationale for this was the belief in constructivist circles that the constructivist paradigm offered new ways to judge quality (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). Guba and Lincoln (1994) identified authenticity criteria as (a) fairness, (b) ontological authenticity, (c) educative authenticity, (d) catalytic authenticity, and (e) tactical authenticity.
Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified fairness as the one indicator of authenticity that can easily be identified and documented. They interpreted fairness as the degree to which participants in a study are treated fairly. In my study I sought to establish fairness by:
• Documenting the participants’ voluntary choice to participate at each stage of the study (initial online survey, personal interviews, and subsequent follow up interviews).
• Providing the participants with adequate time to respond to both online and verbal questioning sessions.
The criteria of ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity are less developed in the literature (Guba, 1981; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Hipps (1993) offered that authenticity criteria are “primarily demonstrated through stakeholder testimony and are supported by an audit trail of evidence of fairness and authenticity” for the “constructivist paradigm offers new lenses for judging the quality of authentic assessments” (p. 1).
Ontological authenticity refers to all stakeholders in a study being involved in constructions and interpretation of data (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This is evidenced when participants become more informed and sophisticated (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and can be documented through an audit trail of testimonials and narratives of experience (Milne, 2005). Educative authenticity is evidenced when participants develop an awareness and empathy for the constructions of others (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is best demonstrated through participants’ testimony of change and documented evidence that displays a development of understanding (Williams, 2003). Catalytic authenticity results when participants make a decision based on new knowledge they have gained (Williams, 2003). It can be seen in the action of participants or their resolution to take an action based on a direct link to their participation in a study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Tactical authenticity is shown when participants feel empowered to act as a result of being a participant in a study (Erlandson, et al., 1993). It is best displayed in participant testimonies.
I considered authenticity criteria during the course of the study and documented evidence of it as it arose. It was mainly evidenced in participants’ interviews, testimonies, and written messages. I used Guba & Lincoln’s (1989) broad definition that stakeholders in the study were not just the participants but also the intended audience.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Introduction
This study was designed to research the expectations teachers have when they engage in telecollaborative project work. The participants in this study were teachers who registered for the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles sponsored by the International Education and Resource Network (iEARN).
There were two layers of data collection conducted for this study. The first layer gathered data from the larger group of teachers that completed the registration process for Learning Circles. The second layer followed the progress of one group of Learning Circles participants in order to provide a more in-depth understanding of their experience. Chapter 4 will present data collected from the larger group of teachers who enrolled in Learning Circles and responded to an invitation to participate in four online surveys. The experience of the small case study group will be presented in Chapter 5.
Survey Sequence and Dates
The Learning Circles phases, survey names, opening dates, and the week of the Learning Circles calendar are presented in Table 8. The surveys were administered to coincide with the ending of various phases of the Learning Circles calendar.
This report begins with a profile of the large group participants. This will be followed by details of the data collected from all four surveys administered to the large group. Findings from the Pre-Survey will be presented first and the findings from Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and the Post Survey will be presented comparatively in the order in which they were administered. The findings from the surveys will be reported by using narrative and table formats.
Table 8
Learning Circles Phases, Surveys, Dates, and Week Numbers
|Learning Circle Phase |Survey Name |Date |Learning |
| | | |Circle Week |
|Getting Ready for Learning Circles |Pre-Survey |September 28, 2008 |1 |
|Opening the Learning Circle | | |2 |
|Planning Student Projects |Interim Survey I |November 3, 2008 |4 |
|Exchanging Student Work |Interim Survey II |December 12, 2008 |6 |
|Organizing the Circle Publication | | |11 |
|Closing the Learning Circle |Post Survey |January 5, 2009 |15 |
The case study experience presented in Chapter 5 will also follow the schedule presented in Table 8. It will begin with background information and interviews conducted with the participants. A week-by-week narrative of the actual events that occurred among the case study participants will follow this. After this, I will provide observations on the behavior of the case study participants and an overview of the overall experience.
Survey Results
Pre-Survey Responses
An invitation to participate email (see Appendix B) was sent to all teachers that successfully completed the registration process for Learning Circles in late September. The first survey was open to the participants on September 28, 2008, three days before the opening of Learning Circles on September 30th. A three-week time period was scheduled for data collection. A total of 57 out of 61 (94.3%) teachers responded to the Pre-Survey (see Appendix C). The Pre-Survey consisted of a series of open-ended questions, a self rating on various aspects of project work with technology, and participant experience and background information. All results were collected and downloaded from the Survey Monkey Website (2008).
The Participants
A total of 61 participants registered for the September 2007 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles. Fifty-seven participants (N=57) responded to the invitation to complete the Pre-Survey. Teachers from 19 different countries participated in this session of Learning Circles with the largest representation of teachers coming from Russia (n=17) and the United States (n=11). The representation of countries included participants from North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The geographic location of the participants is presented in Table 9.
Table 9
Location of Participants
|Country |Number of Registrants |Number of Participants |
| |(N=61) |(N=57) |
|Bahrain |1 |1 |
|Belarus |2 |1 |
|Canada |5 |4 |
|Ghana |3 |3 |
|India |1 |1 |
|Iran |2 |2 |
|Iraq |2 |2 |
|Kenya |1 |1 |
|Morocco |1 |1 |
|Oman |1 |1 |
|Pakistan |2 |2 |
|Romania |1 |1 |
|Russia |18 |17 |
|Slovenia |5 |5 |
|Trinidad and Tobago |1 |1 |
|Turkey |1 |1 |
|United States |12 |11 |
|Uzbekistan |1 |1 |
|Zimbabwe |1 |1 |
The participants worked in a variety of traditional and non-traditional educational institutions. Since many of the participants worked with children in multiple grade levels they were allowed to make more than one choice when asked to identify the type of institution where they worked. As an example, some teachers taught students who were both in elementary and middle school. Other teachers worked with students who were in middle and high school. This crossover is common in Learning Circles since many of the teachers are educational technology coordinators, media specialists, or foreign language teachers. Table 10 records the type of educational institutions the participants worked in as they participated in Learning Circles. Table 11 presents the multiple configurations of settings teacher worked in and the number of teachers who worked in each setting.
Table 10
Type of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked
|Type of Educational Institution |Number of Responses |Percentage |
| |(N=89) | |
|Elementary School |18 |20.9 |
|Middle School |26 |30.2 |
|High School |30 |34.9 |
|College or University |6 |7.0 |
|Educational Support Program |3 |3.5 |
|Other |3 |3.5 |
Table 11
Multiple Configurations of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked
|Educational Institution Configurations |Number of |Percentage |
| |Responses | |
| |(N=57) | |
|Elementary School |7 |12.3 |
|Elementary/Middle School |3 |5.3 |
|Elementary/Middle/High School |5 |8.8 |
|Elementary/Middle/High School/College or |1 |1.8 |
|University | | |
|Elementary School/College or University |1 |1.8 |
|Elementary School/Educational Support Program |1 |1.8 |
|Middle School |8 |14.0 |
|Middle/High School |8 |14.0 |
|Middle/High School/College or |1 |1.8 |
|University | | |
|High School |16 |28.1 |
|College or University |3 |5.3 |
|Educational Support Program |2 |3.5 |
|Elementary/Middle/High School/College or |1 |1.8 |
|University/ Educational Support Program | | |
The responses indicated that 86.0 % of the teachers worked with students in a traditional public or private school setting. This was expected since Learning Circles was designed for teachers in this setting. The Other category were responses from teachers who worked in non-traditional settings such as language programs, facilitator for special projects, or schools that included all ages of children in non-structured grade levels.
The participants evaluated how they integrated technology into the classroom. The most frequent choice at 33.3% was the Appropriation level: “I use technology and incorporate it constantly into my own work practices and classroom. My instruction focuses on the use of cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work.” Table 12 presents the five choices given to teachers. These five choices correspond to the five levels identified by the Apple Classrooms Of Tomorrow study (Apple Computers, 1995).
Table 12
How Teachers Integrate Technology in the Classroom
|Response Choices |Number |Percentage |
| |of | |
| |Responses | |
| |(N=57) | |
|I am still learning how to use and integrate technology. (Entry) |11 |19.3 |
|I am using technology to support my traditional instructional practices, but |11 |19.3 |
|have not made any specific changes to those actual practices. (Adoption) | | |
|I am thoroughly integrating technology into my traditional classroom practice. |11 |19.3 |
|I use productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases, | | |
|graphic programs, presentation tools, and content-specific software. | | |
|(Adaptation) | | |
|I use technology and incorporate it constantly into my own work practices and |19 |33.3 |
|classroom. My instruction focuses on the use of cooperative, project-based, and| | |
|interdisciplinary work. (Appropriation) | | |
|I am beginning to discover, experiment, and design new uses for technology |5 |8.8 |
|tools and am creating projects that incorporate multiple technologies. | | |
|(Invention) | | |
At first glance it appeared that this was an advanced group of participants since the Appropriation level was chosen by more participants than any other. A closer examination indicated that teachers at an advanced level did not primarily dominate the group. The combination of the Entry, Adoption, and Adaptation phases showed that 57.9% of the teachers were in a level whereby they were beginning to incorporate the use of technology into their teaching. This corresponded with the background information presented in the next session and seems to give a better picture of who the participants were.
Background Information
Background information was collected to understand the experience and diversity of the group. The group had an average of 2.5 years of experience with telecollaborative project work. The range of experience was from 0 to 24 years (R=24). This was a largely inexperienced group with 64.9 % of the participants indicating they had one or less years of experience. Of this 64.9 %, 10.5% indicated they had less than one year, and 47.4 % had no experience at all. Only 5.3% of the participants had 10 or more years of experience. Table 13 presents the actual numbers and percentages of the participants experience with telecollaborative project work, ICT, and project-based learning methodologies.
On average, the participants had 5.2 years of experience with ICT such as e-mail, online forums, and synchronous chat sessions. The range of experience was from 0 to 16 years (R=16). When it came to experience using ICT, 29.9 % of the participants had one or less year of experience with 5.3% indicating that they had less than one year and 8.8 % with no experience at all. In the area of ICT use, 15.8 % of the participants had 10 or more years of experience.
Table 13
Years of Experience with Telecollaborative Project Work, ICT, and Project-based Learning Methodologies
| |Telecollaborative |ICT |Project-based Learning |
| |Project Work | |Methodologies |
|Years of Experience |Number |Percen- |Number |Percen- |Number |Percen- |
| |of |tage |of |tage |of |tage |
| |Respond- | |Respond- | |Respond- | |
| |ents | |ents | |ents | |
| |(N=57) | |(N=57) | |(N=57) | |
|Less Than One |6 |10.5 |3 |5.3 |1 |1.8 |
|1 |4 |7.0 |9 |15.8 |6 |10.5 |
|2 |4 |7.0 |5 |8.8 |6 |10.5 |
|3 |1 |1.8 |6 |10.5 |5 |8.8 |
|4 |3 |5.3 |1 |1.8 |13 |22.8 |
|5 |1 |1.8 |2 |3.5 |1 |1.8 |
|6 |3 |5.3 |3 |5.3 |0 |0.0 |
|7 |2 |3.5 |6 |10.5 |2 |3.5 |
|8 |1 |1.8 |2 |3.5 |7 |12.3 |
|9 |2 |3.5 |6 |10.5 |1 |1.8 |
|10 or More |3 |5.3 |9 |15.8 |7 |12.3 |
The participants had an average 4.7 years of experience using project-based teaching methodologies such as project-based learning or project-based approaches to classroom management. The range of experience was from 0 to 17 years (R=17). When they identified their experience using project-based approaches, 26.3 % of the participants had one or less year of experience with 14.0 % indicating they had no experience at all. Close to one-fourth of the participants had 8 or more years of experience.
The participants rated themselves on their use of project-based learning with technology methodologies. A scale was developed that allowed participants to rate themselves on 10 different teacher behaviors associated with project-based learning methodologies. Each item was rated using a 1 through 5 Likert-type scale. Teachers that scored closer to a total of 50 points were more likely to use project-based types of methodologies. Participant scores ranged from a low of 22 to 46 (R=24). The mean score was 35.09; the median was 35; the mode was 38; and the standard deviation was 5.10. A list of each question category, rating scale, and responses is presented in Table 14.
Table 14
Use of Project Work With Technology
|Response Categories |Rating Scale |Rating Mean |
| |Percentage |(Standard |
| |(Number of Respondents) |Deviation) |
| |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 | |
|Assessment |Minimal Use of | | | |Multiple Uses of | |
| |Assessment | | | |Assessment | |
| |7.0 | | | |24.6 | |
| |(4) |10.5 |19.3 |31.6 |(14) |3.68 |
| | |(6) |(11) |(18) | |(1.2) |
|Real World Experiences |Not Related to the | | | |Related to the Real| |
| |Real World | | | |World | |
| |0.0 | | | |49.1 | |
| |(0) |5.3 |12.3 |26.3 |(28) |4.32 |
| | |(3) |(7) |(15) | |(0.9) |
|Decision Making |Teacher Makes | | | |Students Make | |
| |Decisions | | | |Decisions | |
| |7.0 | | | |10.5 | |
| |(4) |17.5 |43.9 |21.1 |(6) |3.23 |
| | |(7) |(25) |(12) | |(1.1) |
|Central Question |Identified by | | | |Identified by | |
| |Teacher | | | |Students | |
| |7.0 |17.5 |38.6 |22.8 |8.8 |3.16 |
| |(4) |(10) |(22) |(13) |(5) |(1.1) |
|Curriculum |Not Related To | | | |Curriculum Based | |
| |Curriculum | | | | | |
| |7.0 | | | |35.1 | |
| |(4) |10.5 |14.0 |28.1 |(20) |3.82 |
| | |(6) |(8) |(16) | |(1.3) |
|ICT Use |Minimal Use of | | | |Multiple Uses of | |
| |ICT | | | |ICT | |
| |12.3 | | | |33.3 | |
| |(7) |10.5 |19.3 |19.3 |(19) |3.61 |
| | |(6) |(11) |(11) | |(1.4) |
|Student Collaboration |Minimal Student | | | |Student | |
| |Collabor- | | | |Collabor-ation at | |
| |ation | | | |All Phases | |
| |1.8 | | | |40.4 | |
| |(1) |1.8 |21.1 |29.8 |(23) |4.16 |
| | |(1) |(12) |(17) | |(0.9) |
|End of Project |Focus on Process | | | |Focus on End | |
| |22.8 | | | |Project | |
| |(13) |21.1 |40.4 |8.8 |7.0 |2.56 |
| | |(12) |(23) |(5) |(4) |(1.1) |
|Depth of Study |Minimal Study of | | | |Major Study of | |
| |Subject Matter | | | |Subject Matter | |
| |5.3 | | | |21.1 | |
| |(3) | | | |(12) | |
| | |1.8 |31.6 |35.1 | |3.72 |
| | |(1) |(18) |(20) | |(1.0) |
Open-ended Questions
Question 1
The first open-ended question asked participants to describe the expectations they had for Learning Circles. Responses were collected from all 57 participants and downloaded from Survey Monkey. The responses were reviewed to look for emerging themes. More than half of the respondents recorded multiple expectations. The responses tended to focus on types of experiences that teachers wanted to create or provide for their students.
The first layer of coding focused on determining the primary reason or primary response for each participant. All responses were hand-coded and special attention was given to the fact that most of the responses were from teachers for whom English was not their first language. Six major categories of expectations emerged from the responses. These categories and the number of responses are listed in Table 15.
Table 15
Open-ended Question 1
|What expectations do you have for Learning Circles? |
|Response Categories |Main Response |Main and Additional Responses |
| | |(N= 103) |
| |(N=57) | |
|Global Education |20 |35 |
|Language Skills |14 |22 |
|Teacher Ideas |11 |17 |
|Telecollaboration |8 |14 |
|Motivation/Enrich Learning |2 |8 |
|Technology |2 |7 |
Teachers identified that the major expectation they were looking for was a global education experience (n=20) for their students. The category that received the second greatest response was teachers looking for a language experience. This included subcategories such as practicing English writing and reading (for students studying English as a second language) as well as teachers that were looking a language communication experience for their students.
After the initial round of coding, responses that had multiple answers were put through a second level of coding to break down the multiple responses into individual categories. No new categories emerged and global education remained the category that was identified most often. A third level of coding was applied to the responses to look for subcategories within each category. This proved a more difficult task since a good number of teachers identified general expectations rather than specific goals. Some subcategories did emerge in various categories. Teachers that were looking for a language experience for their students identified that they were specifically looking to enhance their students’ opportunity to use and practice their English as a second language. Other teachers were specifically using Learning Circles as a literary project and were hoping that students would improve their skills by writing for a real audience or would see examples from children their own age that they could use as models.
Question 2
The second open-ended question asked teachers to specifically focus on the expectations they had for their students. In the pilot study, a few teachers had expressed that Question 1 and Question 2 seemed similar, yet, when the teachers responded, it was clear that they did draw distinctions between the two questions and were able to move from examining their general expectations for Learning Circles to their more specific expectations for just their students. Teacher expectations for their students yielded five categories in both rounds of coding. These categories centered on experiences or related skills that teachers were looking to provide or develop with students. The response categories for both rounds of coding are presented in Table 16.
Table 16
Open-ended Question 2
|What outcomes are you hoping to realize for your students as you use Learning Circles? |
|Response Categories |Main Response |Main and Additional Responses |
| | |(N= 115) |
| |(N=57) | |
|Global Education |20 |35 |
|Language Skills |19 |30 |
|Motivation/Enrich Learning |8 |20 |
|Technology |7 |18 |
|Telecollaboration |3 |12 |
The second open-ended question produced more responses with multiple expectations. Since teachers were asked to specifically focus on students, it appeared that they were more inclined to have multiple expectations that they hoped their students would gain by participating in Learning Circles. The Global Education and Language Skill categories continued to dominate the expectations teachers had for Learning Circles.
Question 3
The purpose of Question 3 was to have teachers focus exclusively on themselves and to examine their own personal expectations for using Learning Circles. Teachers were hoping that Learning Circles would advance their level of professional skills. They also were genuinely expecting to gain skills in being able to implement and engage in telecollaborative learning activities. The main response and additional responses for each category are presented in Table 17. Generally teachers appeared to be interested in their own skills proficiencies in some way. The improvement of professional skills achieved the greatest number of responses. Teachers who specifically indicated that they were looking to improve their skills in using telecollaborative project work was the second highest level. The category that received the third highest level of response was teachers who were expecting to gain some general degree of learning by simply being exposed to teachers from other cultures and different parts of the world. The teachers did not express any specific skill or experience, but simply indicated that they believed the environment would enrich them as teachers. Two categories emerged in the second round of coding that did not appear in the initial round. Three teachers specifically expressed that they were expecting to improve their own English skills and one teacher was looking to make new friends.
Table 17
Open-ended Question 3
|Do you have any learning goals for yourself in this telecommunication project? If so, what are they? |
|Response Categories |Main Response |Main and Additional Responses |
| | |(N= 83) |
| |(N=57) | |
|Improve Professional Skills |17 |22 |
|Learn Telecollaboration |17 |20 |
|Learn by Being Exposed To Other Teachers |12 |16 |
|Improve ICT Skills |8 |14 |
|Global Education Experience |3 |7 |
|Improve English Skills |0 |3 |
|Make New Friends |0 |1 |
Additional Responses
Teachers were given the opportunity to share or express any information they believed would be of interest or use to the research or the researchers. Most of the information focused on explaining a local teaching situation or offering opinions for a successful project. Three participants offered some insight into the current state of telecollaborative project work. One teacher wrote:
I am of the view that a lot of teachers may be willing to integrate technology into the classroom but the nature of timetables in the schools and the facilities as well as the focus of educational institutions make things sometimes difficult.
Another teacher offered:
The integration of technology into the classroom in a meaningful way is one of the biggest challenges we face. Therefore engaging in a project such as Learning Circles greatly aids the teacher in examining and engaging in meaningful use.
A third teacher provided more insight:
In our country, telecollaborative work is still something that only "enthusiastic" teachers do. Their work is not valued and it is not supported enough by government. And till the participation in international projects and project-based learning won't be a state politics, the development won't be fast enough.
Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey
Three online surveys were made available to all the participants who responded to the initial Pre-Survey. Interim Survey I was opened to the participants on November 3, 2009. This allowed the participants to assess their experience at the end of five full weeks. During this time period, each participating teacher should have introduced him/herself and his/her class through the use of a Class Survey and optional student messages. Each participant should have also posted a Project Idea. Of the original 57 study participants, 50 participants completed Interim Survey I.
Interim Survey II was administered on December 12, 2008. This was the tenth week of Learning Circles that coincided the end of the Exchange of Student Work and the beginning of the Publication phase. This survey was exactly like the first Interim Survey except that it contained two additional questions that asked the participants to identify their primary reason for using Learning Circles for their students and themselves. The number of participants who responded to this survey was 41. The lower number of respondents was due to the fact that some participants dropped out during the Exchange of Student Information. The most common reasons for participants to drop out were that either they were not able to develop a Project Idea, they found that it was too much commitment to gather work for other schools, or their Circle became inactive due to lack of participation by most of the members.
The final Post Survey was made available to the participants on January 7, 2009. Most of the participants had a vacation break the previous two weeks due to the Christmas and New Year’s holiday. This survey coincided with the beginning of the Saying Goodbye phase of Learning Circles. The participants had about a two-week time frame in which to say goodbye and to finish up any final details regarding the submission of their final projects. The Post Survey was similar in format to the two previous interim surveys. The major differences were that the participants were asked assess their entire Learning Circles experience and project if they would participate in the future. The number of participants who responded to this survey was 39. This number again dropped from the previous phase due to the fact that two participants had stopped their participation over the holiday and during the publication time period. Neither participant was willing to provide an explanation for ending their participation.
Changing Expectations
Participants were asked: Have your expectations changed since you began the project? For Interim Survey 1, which was administered at 5 weeks, 24 of 50 (48.0 %) participants responded “Yes” and 26 of the 50 (52.0 %) participants responded “No.” When the participants responded to this question at 10 weeks during Interim Survey II, 18 of 41 (43.9%) participants responded “Yes” and 23 of the 41 (56.1%) participants responded “No.” The final Post Survey showed similar results to the two previous surveys even though it asked participants to assess their overall experience instead of just the last five weeks. When participants were asked: Did your expectations change since you began the project? 16 of 39 (41.0%) participants responded “Yes” and 23 of the 39 (59.0%) participants responded “No.” All results are presented in Table 18. Over the three surveys the number of participants who responded that their expectations changed definitely decreased. It is likely that as the participants became more familiar with the project they were less likely to view their expectations as having changed.
Table 18
Changing Expectations
|Have your expectations changed since you began the project? |
|Response Choice |Interim Survey I |Interim Survey II |Post Survey |
| |(N=50) |(N=41) |(N=39) |
|Yes |24 |18 |16 |
| |(48.0) |(43.9) |(41.0) |
|No |26 |23 |23 |
| |(52.0) |(56.1) |(59.0) |
If a participant answered, “Yes,” he/she was prompted to provide an explanation on how his/her expectation changed. Responses were coded for all three surveys using the same method used on the initial open-ended questions to look for emerging categories and patterns. For Interim Survey II and the Post Survey, I began with the categories that emerged from the previous survey and then added new categories as they emerged. Each teacher gave only one reason why he/she had changed his/her expectation for Learning Circles. The response categories and number of responses for all three surveys are presented in Table 19.
Table 19
How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey
|Response Categories |Number of Responses |Number of Responses |Number of Responses |
|Expectations changed because…. |Interim Survey I |Interim Survey II |Post |
| |(N=24) |(N=19) |Survey |
| | | |(N=16) |
|Experience has been more positive |7 |5 |5 |
|than expected | | | |
|Project is more work than expected |6 |4 |3 |
|Expected more direct interaction among students |4 |0 |0 |
|Expected more participation by other participants |4 |4 |5 |
|Expected more commitment to projects by other |1 |0 |1 |
|participants | | | |
|Of the behavior of the participants |1 |2 |1 |
|Expected projects to be determined by facilitators |1 |0 |0 |
|Of local technical problems |0 |2 |0 |
|Expected more back-and-forth discussion among |0 |2 |0 |
|participants | | | |
|Forced to withdraw because school administration did not |0 |0 |1 |
|approve | | | |
The category that initially received the greatest number of responses during Interim Survey I actually recorded a positive change. The response “Expectations changed based on the behavior of the participants” did not carry either a negative or positive connotation, but rather the discovery that the participants behaved in a way that was different than the participant had originally expected. The remaining categories all reflected expectations that had changed in a negative way than the participant had originally anticipated.
By Interim Survey II, the comments were generally more negative than positive. Of the 19 participants who responded, 10 indicated that their expectations changed in a negative way with the most common reasons being that participants were not experiencing the participation they expected or the project was simply more work than they expected. On the positive side, 5 participants indicated that they were more comfortable with the project and believed it was accomplishing their objectives. The most common comment was that their familiarity with the project allowed them to better assess their expectations. One teacher recorded in a positive way that his/her students had experienced more international awareness. The two participants that indicated they had changed their expectations based on the behavior of the participants did not express a strong positive or negative change. They expressed that now that they were more aware of the project, they believed their students would be able to respond more appropriately. Two participants indicated that their expectations had changed because of local technical problems they experienced that were unexpected and did not allow their students to participate as fully as they had anticipated.
A comparison between Interim Surveys I and II showed that participants continued to change their expectations because they found the project to be more work than expected or they were anticipating more participation by other participants. During both surveys, over half the participants stated that they had changed their expectations because they were expecting some behavior or a higher level of participation from the other participants. Participants were also more specialized in their responses or were able to isolate how they had changed their expectation. Their explanations displayed more reflection and familiarity with the project.
By the time the participants completed the Post Survey, negative comments continued to dominate the reasons why participants changed their expectations. In general, teachers changed their expectations because they were not getting the communication and collaboration from students and teachers in other schools that they had anticipated before the project began. Also, three teachers found that the project required more work than they expected when they signed up at the beginning. On the other hand, 5 of the 16 participants who responded had changed their expectations in a positive way. The most common response was that the teachers saw their students learning and gaining more from the experience than they had initially expected. Teachers also believed that they better understood the process of telecollaboration and would be better prepared to participate in a future project. One teacher from a Middle Eastern country lamented that his/her expectations changed because the head of his/her school did not see the value in the project and believed it was dangerous for students to communicate with other students in other areas of the world. A comparison between the three surveys shows that the type and number of responses remained similar.
After the results of Interim Survey I were finalized, a Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test was run to determine if there was any significant relationship between a participant’s level of experience and their change of expectations. It was anticipated that participants with no or little experience (defined as less than one year) would be more likely to indicate that they had changed their expectations and participants with experience (defined as one year or greater) would be more likely to indicate that they had not changed heir expectations. The test indicated that there was no significant difference between a participant’s level of experience and their expectations (P-Value = 0.7325, x2 = 0.1169; DF = 1). Since results of Interim Survey II and the Post Survey showed similar results to Interim Survey I, the Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test was not repeated.
Realization of Expectations
On all three surveys the participants were asked to rate their experience on the four following questions:
• How did Learning Circles meet your expectations? (Learning Circles)
• How did the outcomes to students you anticipated meet your expectations? (Student Outcomes)
• How did the areas of personal growth you anticipated meet your expectations? (Personal Growth)
• Please rate your overall experience with Learning Circles. (Overall Experience)
Table 20 presents the responses collected from all the participants who responded to Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and the Post Survey.
Table 20
How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey 1, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey
|Response |Survey # |Rating Scale | |
|Categories| |Percentage | |
| | |(Number of Respondents) | |
| | | | |
| | | |Rating Mean |
| | | |(Standard |
| | | |Deviation) |
| | |Fully | |Meeting Some of | |Not | |
| | |Meeting | |My Expectations | |Meeting | |
| | |My Expectations | | | |My Expectations | |
| |2 |17.1 |31.7 |46.3 |2.4 |2.4 |3.59 |
| | |(7) |(13) |(19) |(1) |(1) |(0.89) |
| |Post |10.3 |41.0 |38.5 |5.1 |5.1 |3.46 |
| | |(4) |(16) |(15) |(2) |(2) |(0.94) |
|Student |1 |20.0 |32.0 |46.0 |0.0 |2.0 |3.68 |
|Outcomes | |(10) |(16) |(23) |(0) |(1) |(0.87) |
| |2 |19.5 |29.3 |39.0 |7.3 |4.9 |3.51 |
| | |(8) |(12) |(16) |(3) |(2) |(1.03) |
| |Post |17.9 |30.8 |41.0 |7.7 |2.6 |3.54 |
| | |(7) |(12) |(16) |(3) |(1) |(0.97) |
|Personal |1 |18.0 |34.0 |46.0 |2.0 |0.0 |3.68 |
|Growth | |(9) |(17) |(23) |(1) |(0) |(0.79) |
| |2 |24.4 |34.1 |34.1 |2.4 |4.9 |3.71 |
| | |(10) |(14) |(14) |(1) |(2) |(1.03) |
| |Post |20.5 |43.6 |28.2 |2.6 |5.1 |3.72 |
| | |(8) |(17) |(11) |(1) |(2) |(1.00) |
|Overall |1 |22.0 |32.0 |40.0 |4.0 |2.0 |3.68 |
|Experience| |(11) |(16) |(20) |(2) |(1) |(0.94) |
| |2 |22.0 |39.0 |34.1 |4.9 |0.0 |3.78 |
| | |(9) |(16) |(14) |(2) |(0) |(0.85) |
| |Post |20.5 |43.6 |33.3 |5.1 |2.6 |3.78 |
| | |(6) |(17) |(13) |(2) |(1) |(0.85) |
Learning Circles Meeting Expectations
When the participants were asked if Learning Circles was meeting their expectations on Interim Survey I, 92.0% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 20.0 % believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only 8.0% felt it was not meeting some of their expectations, and zero participants indicated that it was not meeting their expectations at all.
By Interim Survey II, 95.1% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 17.1% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only 4.8% felt it was not meeting some of their expectations, and only one participant (2.4%) indicated that it was not meeting his/her expectations at all. These results were similar to the first survey with the major difference being that one participant did indicate that Learning Circles was not meeting his/her expectations at all.
When teachers were asked on the Post Survey if Learning Circles had met their expectations, 89.8% answered that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 20.5% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. On the negative side, four participants (10.2%) felt it was not meeting their expectations in some way and of those four, two participants (5.1%) felt it did not meet their expectations at all. The results of the Post Survey appeared to follow the trend established by the previous surveys with the major difference being that two more teachers than in the previous survey saw their experience as not meeting their expectations in some way.
Meeting Student Expectations
When the participants evaluated their expectations for student outcomes in Interim Survey I, 98.0% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 20.0 % believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only one participant (2.0 %) felt it was not meeting his/her expectations at all. By Interim Survey II, 87.8% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 19.5 % believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Five participants (12.2%) indicated that Learning Circles was not meeting their expectations in some way, and two participants (4.9%) felt it was not meeting their expectations at all. When teachers were asked in the Post Survey how their anticipated outcomes for students met their expectations, 89.7% believed it met at least some of their expectations, and 17.9% believed that it fully met their expectations. Four participants (10.3%) responded that Learning Circles did not meet their expectations for student outcome in some way, and only one participant (2.6%) felt that it did not meet his/her expectations at all. The results for student outcomes remained similar during all three surveys with slightly more negatives appearing in the final two surveys.
Respondents were requested to describe the most important change that they saw happening in their classroom as a result of their participation in Learning Circles. The results of all three surveys are presented in Table 21. Initially 10 distinct categories emerged. New categories were added as they emerged during Interim Survey II and the Post Survey. Of the 50 participants who responded to Interim Survey I, 40 described their most important change. All categories reflected a positive experience except one that indicated that student interest in project work actually decreased because of their experience. Two responses were uncategorized because the participants did not write enough to clearly understand their meaning. For Interim Survey II, 27 of the 41 participants responded. The majority of responses indicated a positive experience. A new category was developed for two participants who indicated that they were having unique problems. One teacher indicated that her students were having a problem connecting to the Internet and that they were not getting much from their participation. The other teacher was the person from the Middle Eastern school who was experiencing problems with the head of his/her school. The Uncategorized category contained one response from a teacher who did not describe a change, but rather gave an update on the tasks his/her students were working on.
For the Post Survey, 31 responses were received for this question. All the responses were positive except for two. One teacher indicated that his/her students did not become involved in the process and the other response was again from the teacher of the Middle Eastern school. A new category was developed for one teacher who indicated that his/her students were experiencing a greater connection and more cooperation in their student-teacher interaction.
Table 21
Most Important Outcome Achieved in the Classroom As a Result of Learning Circles: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey
|Response Categories |Number of Responses |Number of Responses |Number of Responses |
|Students experienced……. |Interim Survey I |Interim Survey II |Post |
| |(N=40) |(N=27) |Survey |
| | | |(N=31) |
|Increased global awareness |13 |5 |6 |
|Interest and motivation for telecollaboration has |10 |9 |7 |
|increased | | | |
|Greater focus on project work |4 |5 |4 |
|Improvement in language skills |4 |2 |4 |
|More dialogue with new students |2 |0 |0 |
|Greater interest in collaboration |2 |1 |4 |
|Engagement in authentic work |1 |0 |2 |
|Greater interest in the use of technology |1 |2 |1 |
|Decrease in enthusiasm for project work |1 |0 |1 |
|Local technical difficulties |0 |2 |0 |
|Stronger cooperative relationship between student and |0 |0 |1 |
|teacher | | | |
|*Uncategorized |2 |1 |1 |
A comparison between Surveys I and II showed that the initial interest and motivation for telecollaborative learning continued through to the second survey. On the other hand, there was a significant decrease for global awareness. Overall, a comparison of the three surveys showed that Interim Survey II and the Post Survey were most similar. Most likely as teachers engaged in project work with students they began to see student achievement in areas associated with a telecollaborative activity. Teachers perceived that the area where the students experienced the most achievement was in having a greater understanding and appreciation for telecollaboration. They also saw their students as developing more global awareness, a greater interest in project work, stronger language skills, and greater proficiency in collaborating with other students as well as each other.
Meeting Teacher Expectations
In addition to their expectations for students, teachers were asked if Learning Circles was meeting their expectations for anticipated areas of personal growth. For Interim Survey I, 98.0 % responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 18.0 % believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only one participant (2.0%) felt it was not meeting some of his/her expectations, and no participant indicated that it was not meeting their expectations at all. By the Interim Survey II, 92.7% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations and 24.4% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Three participants (7.3%) believed that Learning Circles was not meeting their expectations, and two participants (4.9%) felt it was not meeting their expectations at all. Of the 39 participants who responded to the Post Survey, 92.8% indicated that it met at least some of their expectations, and 20.5% believed that it fully met their expectations. Three participants (7.7%) believed that Learning Circles did not meet their expectations in some way, and two of these three participants (5.1%) felt it was not meeting their expectations at all.
Respondents were requested to describe the most important area of personal growth that they were experiencing on Surveys I and II. On the Post Survey, they were asked to reflect back on the most important area of personal growth the experienced from the project. All responses are presented in Table 22. For Interim Survey I, 39 of the 57 participants responded. Their responses were coded and 8 distinct categories were identified. For Interim Survey II, 30 of the 41 participants responded. The codes from the Interim Survey I were again used as the starting point for the questions for the Interim Survey II. The same coding procedure that was used for the previous surveys was also used for the 29 participants who responded to the Post Survey. No new categories emerged in this final survey and no negative areas of personal growth were expressed.
On Interim Survey I, all categories reflected a positive change with the greatest number of responses coming from those teachers who believed that they were developing project management skills. There were five responses that were Uncategorized because they either did not contain enough details to be placed in a category, indicated that the responder was unsure if they were experiencing personal growth, or did not describe an area of personal growth. Again on Interim Survey II, all categories reflected a positive change. The greatest number of responses came from those teachers who believed that they were developing project management skills. A new category emerged from participants who indicated that they were developing personal character traits such as self-trust, self-discipline, self-confidence, online social skills, and personal communication skills. The Uncategorized category was again used for participants who posted comments that were not well defined, did not seem to answer the question, or seemed to indicate that the participants were experiencing some personal frustration with other members of their Circle.
The results of the Post Survey showed that the area where the most teachers believed they experienced growth was in developing more teaching skills. Teachers were not specific in describing the skills they believed and expressed that they felt their teaching became better as a result of their experience. Other categories that received higher numbers of responses from teachers indicated that teachers did feel that they were more proficient with using telecollaboration. Teachers also expressed that they did feel more connected to the global community of teachers and were more aware of what teachers were doing in other areas of the world. The Uncategorized category was again used for participants who posted comments that did not seem to answer the question or discussed areas of student growth.
Table 22
Most Important Area of Personal Growth That a Teacher Experienced: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey
|Response Categories |Number of Responses |Number of Responses |Number of Responses |
|Personally teachers……… |Interim Survey 1 |Interim Survey II |Post |
| |(N=39) |(N=30) |Survey |
| | | |(N=29) |
|Developed project management skills |14 |7 |2 |
|Improved technology skills for teaching |6 |3 |2 |
|Experienced a greater understanding of telecollaboration|6 |6 |4 |
|Found global awareness of teaching in other countries |5 |2 |5 |
|Improved teaching skills |3 |1 |9 |
|Experienced a greater understanding of students |2 |0 |2 |
|Improved English skills |1 |1 |1 |
|Found personal character growth |0 |6 |1 |
|*Uncategorized |5 |4 |3 |
A comparison between the first two surveys found that there were some major shifts in how teachers were experiencing their own personal growth. The number of teachers who believed they were developing project management skills dropped from 14 to 7. Six teachers found that they were experiencing their own unique areas of personal character growth. An overall examination of the three surveys showed that this question had more major shifts than the other questions. Initially teachers identified that they believed they were developing project management skills, but over the course of the project, teachers switched to expressing that they believed their teaching skills in general were improving. It is possible that the teachers began to internalize the project management skills they were developing and incorporate them into their general teaching. There was also a noticeable drop in teachers identifying technology skills as their major area of personal growth. This seems to follow the same trend found in the shift from project management skills. Project management and ICT skills were two areas teachers needed to develop to be successful with telecollaborative work. As they identified and developed these skills they appeared to incorporate them into other areas. The numbers of responses associated with the other categories remained relatively stable throughout the three surveys.
Meeting Overall Expectations
The last question participants were asked to rate was their overall experience with Learning Circles. On Interim Survey I, 94.0% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 22.0% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only 6.0% felt it was not meeting their expectations in some way, and only one participant (2.0%) believed it was not meeting his/ her expectations at all.
On Interim Survey II, 95.1% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 22.0% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only two participants (4.9%) felt it was not meeting their expectations in some way, and zero participants believed it was not meeting his/ her expectations at all. A comparison of overall growth between Interim Surveys I and II showed similar results. In general, an overwhelming number of teachers believed that Learning Circles was meeting at least some of their expectations.
The Post Survey asked the participants to reflect back over the entire project and rate their overall experience with Learning Circles. Of the 39 participants, 97.4% responded that it met at least some of their expectations, and 20.5% believed that it fully met their expectations. Only three participants (7.7%) felt it did not meet their expectations in some way, and one (2.6%) of those three participants believed it did not meet his/her expectations at all. A comparison of the three surveys showed similar results. There were small shifts between teachers expressing that overall Learning Circles met some of their expectations and those who had a slightly favorable view of Learning Circles meeting their overall expectations. Throughout all three surveys, 94% or more of the teachers always found that Learning Circles was meeting at least some of their expectations.
Progress Update
Each survey participant was asked to describe how his/her Learning Circle experience was progressing after weeks five and ten. Week five was chosen because it coincided with the end of the Exchange of Cultural Information and the Project Idea phases. Week ten coincided with the end of the Exchange of Student Information phase. Participants were encouraged to describe what was working well and what was not working. Most participants wrote a narrative that was close to a paragraph in length. Their responses were coded to determine the general theme of their progress report. For Interim Survey I seven categories were identified. Three additional categories emerged during Interim Survey II that did not occur in the first Interim Survey. All categories from Interim Surveys I and II are presented in Table 23.
Table 23
Progress of Learning Circle Experience: Interim Survey I and Interim Survey II
|Response Categories |Number of Responses |Number of Responses |
| |Interim Survey I |Interim Survey II |
| |(N=49) |(N=40) |
|Predominantly positive experience for teacher and students (Minor |18 |14 |
|problems identified) | | |
|Beginner – experiencing confusion and still learning the process |10 |0 |
|Project moving slower than anticipated |6 |4 |
|Mixed experience – some parts are going well and other areas are |6 |10 |
|not going as expected | | |
|Feeling disconnected from the other participants in the Circle |4 |2 |
|Learning to balance the work required to complete the project |3 |0 |
|Would like to see more student dialogue |2 |1 |
|Frustrated by lack of responses or participation from other |0 |3 |
|schools | | |
|Too much work for students to complete in time |0 |4 |
|Not completing the project – have decided to drop out |0 |2 |
Interim Survey I. Teachers who described their experience as predominantly positive tended to see almost all of their experience as being a worthwhile experience for students that was worth their investment of time and energy. Their negative comments were minor or often dealt with frustrations experienced locally. An example of this type of message was:
It's such a pleasant learning experience for my students as it helps them to: introduce their own culture and country to others, improve foreign language skills, understand similarities and differences, and improve research skills. Problems and challenges: We have little chance to use the computers at school. Students have difficulties in communicating in other languages.
Teachers who were beginners expressed frustration in not knowing what to expect and also confusion over not understanding the process. An example written by one of the teachers expressed this frustration and confusion:
Frustrating because it took a long time to gather the data for the class survey - sometimes confused about what is expected of me; eg. the template for our circle - emails from coordinator help to keep me on track and make me feel supported but I'm reluctant to seek help in case my concerns seem trivial
The category the had the third greatest number of responses was made up of teachers who expressed that currently their project was moving slowly either due to class related reasons or lack of participation by other participants. One teacher wrote:
As I have mentioned in the previous questions the process is running very slow. Because of my absence related to health problems I fell behind the schedule. While I was away I tried to contact my students through e-mail but it didn't work. Now I encourage my other students, who aren't in the project group, in the class to write to the ongoing projects and waiting for their results. Students' enthusiasm is much more motivating then anything else. If there is no place for these projects in school or lesson curriculum it turns out to be a huge problem in terms of accomplishment of each step on time.
Teachers who were experiencing mixed progress seemed to be split between whether their progress was positive or negative. An example of this type of update was:
Not all members of the circle are participating. Only half of us are active. This influences also the students. I don't know whether we misunderstood the instructions, but we were the only ones who also did Welcome Packs (on line) in addition to the survey. The positive side of the project is the students' interest in work and other cultures. They forget to worry about the English grammar when they do the work.
Four teachers described themselves as feeling disconnected from the other members of their Circle. Most expressed that their experience was not what they expected or that they were simply not getting the type of responses they expected.
I enjoy having the opportunity to send Welcome Packages, but overall I feel very disconnected with the circles. I was under the impression that my students would have the opportunity to converse with other students based on a question posed by the facilitator. This may just be confusion on my part, but even when I asked the facilitator and group for suggestions I did not receive anything.
Three teachers expressed that the found they were struggling with balancing their participation in the project with all their other teaching responsibilities. An example of a response that was placed in this category was: “Time is always a pressure and the balance with other curriculum is always a dance.” Two teachers responded that they were disappointed that there was a lack of student-to-student dialogue. One teacher wrote:
I am managing the teaching around Heroes as well as I would without being part of the circle. My kids need a critical audience and quick feedback. The writing portion of the project is proceeding and while and I am providing the feedback. That is fine, but I would love some ongoing feedback from other classes. My class is not satisfied to simply send their writing into outer space without anyone giving feedback, whether that be through personal introductions, hero ideas or the big project itself. I chose to not have my kids write intro letters or anything because who's going to directly respond to them? Seems like a waste of time. They need a way to say "Hi" and to have someone else say "hi" back.
In general, 26 of the 48 responses leaned more to the negative, 18 were strongly positive and 5 were evenly balanced between the positive and negative.
Interim Survey II. Teachers who saw their experience to date as being largely positive with only minor problems continued to dominate the type of responses received in the progress update. One teacher wrote, “I've got new ideas, made new friends, tried to take part in the international project, learned a lot of interesting things, got important experience, and had lots of positive emotions.” Another teacher wrote, “Our group is doing very well and students are learning to do collaborative projects.”
Participants who had a mixed experience continued to indicate that some things were working well, but they equally found there were negative aspects to their experience. One teacher wrote:
This interesting experience will involve me more in other experiences with telecollaborative projects and push me more to use ICT as to approach some topic of the curriculum. I did share this experience with some colleagues and friends and some of them have shown interest to try it. My students were very excited during all the process and especially the short moments they were working in the computers. Access to Internet was for my students and me the biggest challenge and this is why the expectations weren't completely met.
Another teacher wrote:
Overall it's going on well. What is working well is that my students are enjoying learning about students from other countries and sharing their work. What is not working well is that there was more than one project idea in the Learning Circle which made it difficult for my students to work on them all, especially if all of them were interested in working one idea, then it was difficult for me to introduce another project proposal. Another point is that not all participants sent their project ideas on time, which was a bit inconvenient.
Some of the participants who wrote about their experiences in a negative way actually found that their students were so involved it was taking more time than anticipated. One teacher commented:
Anyway, I'm having trouble completing the projects on time because I've made them too complicated and have had to wait for responses from the heroes. I didn't anticipate having such great responses from the kids’ heroes. Around 60% of my kids have had meaningful, interactive responses from their heroes.
Other participants found they were still disconnected from their Circle members and were frustrated by the lack of responses and participation. One teacher responded, “It has not been so good so far. It feels disjointed because participants send in different things and different times. I don't really know what to expect or when.” Another teacher wrote, “I have found this session of the Learning Circle very disappointing. This is because the other classes except one in my country, Ghana, have not sent in their topics. I am confused as to what to tell my students.” Other teachers found that the project requests were simply too much work for their students. One teacher expressed, “Some of project ideas are unclear for me. Other tasks are too large: they ask for too much information.” Two teachers wrote that they were not completing the project due to local situations that prevented them from continuing their participation.
Expectations
After the Pre-Survey was administered it was decided that it would be valuable to have the participants observe the expectation categories given for participation in Learning Circles and choose the one they believed was their most important student expectation as well as their most important personal expectation. This question was presented to the participants during Interim Survey II. The category choices and number of responses are presented in Tables 24 and 25.
Table 24
Student Expectations for Learning Circles
|Choose your number one student expectation for Learning Circles. |
|Response Categories |Percentages |
| |(Number of Responses) |
| |(N=41) |
|To increase students' experience with ICT |9.8 |
| |(4) |
|To allow students to engage in collaborative project-work |17.1 |
| |(7) |
|To provide motivating and enriching learning activities for students |7.3 |
| |(3) |
|To promote student global awareness and exposure to other cultures |43.9 |
| |(18) |
|To provide students with opportunities to improve their language and communication |22.0 |
|skills |(9) |
|Other (please specify) |0 |
| |(0) |
Table 25
Personal Expectations for Learning Circles
|Choose your number one expectation for yourself for Learning Circles? |
|Response Categories |Percentages |
| |(Number of Responses) |
| |(N=41) |
|To gain and exchange creative ideas with other teachers |19.5 |
| |(8) |
|To improve my computer and ICT skills |0 |
| |(0) |
|To improve my general teaching skills |9.8 |
| |(4) |
|To develop friendships and expose myself to teachers from other cultures |12.2 |
| |(5) |
|To gain experience with telecollaborative project work |58.5 |
| |(24) |
|Other (please specify) |0 |
| |(0) |
The responses given by the participants did not produce any surprises. When they were given the opportunity to choose only one main expectation for their students and themselves they confirmed the same choices they made in the initial survey. No one chose the “Other” category for either question.
The Learning Circle Process
It was also decided after the Pre-Survey that it would be valuable to identify where in the Learning Circle process the participants were best fulfilling their expectations. A question was developed for the Post Survey that asked the participants to identify the phase of Learning Circles that they believed best helped them to fulfill their expectation. Since initially it appeared that the majority of participants were looking for some type of global exchange experience it was anticipated that the participants might have viewed the initial cultural exchange phases as more valuable than the project phases. The results of the question are presented in Table 26.
Table 26
The Phase of Learning Circles That Best Helped the Participants to Experience Their Expectations: Post Survey
|Response Categories |Percentages |
|The phase of Learning Circles that you believe best helped you to fulfill your |(Number of Responses) |
|expectations |(N=39) |
|Exchange of Teacher Information |7.7 |
| |(3) |
|Class Survey and Exchange of Student Information |28.2 |
| |(11) |
|Development of Project Idea |23.1 |
| |(9) |
|Exchange of Student Work |28.2 |
| |(11) |
|Publication of Student Work |7.7 |
| |(3) |
|Other |5.1 |
| |(2) |
It is not surprising that the initial cultural exchange phases (Exchange of Student Information, Class Survey, and Exchange of Teacher Information) were chosen by over one-third of the teachers (35.9%) as having best helped them to fulfill their expectations. Upon closer examination, it does appear that teachers also saw the value of the project phase as meeting their expectations. The same number of participants chose the Exchange of Student Work phase (28.2%) as the Class Survey phase. When the Exchange of Student Work and Development of Project Idea are combined, over one-half (51.3%) of the participants chose one of these two phases. It appears that by the end of Learning Circles, more participants began to understand the value the project phases as also helping them to fulfill their global education expectations even more than the exchange of cultural information. The “Other” category included one response from a participant who described the entire process as helping to fulfill his/her expectations. The other participant did not describe a phase, but rather activities associated with the Exchange of Student Work phase.
Future Participation
When participants were asked in the Post Survey if they would participate in Learning Circles again, all 39 teachers responded “Yes” (100%). The participants were asked to share their reasons for choosing “Yes” or “No.” Of the 39 teachers who participated in the survey, 33 teachers wrote reasons that ranged from a few words to an entire paragraph. An attempt was made to develop categories for why teachers would participate again, but the responses were more summative and too general in nature to distinguish major categorical differences.
Some themes did emerge in which participants expressed the value they saw in the project. Among these themes were the fact that teachers did see value in the international exchange among the students and themselves. One teacher remarked, “I love being involved with other cultures, students and teachers to help broaden my understanding of the world we live in.” Another teacher found that, “It brings global awareness to me and my students, there is a variety in the projects and also the collaboration among students widens the learning scope.” A third teacher addressed the potential of ICT by writing, “I think taking part in this work helps students to learn more about the world, about teenagers in different parts of the world, and about the opportunities the computer gives them.” There was no discernable pattern among the themes by region or project choices. In general, the responses were very positive and expressed that participants were pleased with their overall experience.
Teachers also addressed the fact that the projects and experience did not necessarily follow their expectations. One teacher acknowledged, “They are valuable project regardless of the extent to which they are successful or meet expectations. Teachers can only improve their participation the more they are involved from year to year.” Another teacher summarized:
This project is so unique and is so simple to implement in the classroom. Each time I participate, I learn more about how to manage classroom time and integrate technology in a more meaningful way and improve my lesson plans, and apply the theory in a practical way (since they have to produce a project at the end). The project doesn't always turn out the way I envision, but the experience is invaluable and years from now, students will benefit from it through me.
Teachers also projected how the process could serve them better. One teacher envisioned, “The exchanges were a fine first step in a transformational journey. I will like us to see the possibility of video conferencing and working on a common work with more interaction between students. Direct student project exchange was limited.” Another teacher optimistically speculated, “I did not have a good experience with this group and am hoping that the next experience will be much more positive and rewarding.”
A few teachers attempted to give a comprehensive list of reasons why they would participate again. One teacher identified that:
There is a lot to gain from the Learning Circle in terms of: a) Personal skills development, b) Exchange of ideas with fellow teachers from different geographical regions, c) Offering opportunities to many students for learning about other cultures of the world, and d) Giving students the opportunity to learn more about ICT.
Another teacher simply summarized her experience by saying, “It's fun, it's interesting, it is very motivational, and it gives students a sense of doing something that really matters.”
Speaking on the motivational influence of Learning Circles, one teacher indicated she would be participating again because, “I have students contacting me daily about when our next circle will take place. I couldn't stop participating even if I wanted to! My students are too eager to participate again, which I think is wonderful news!”
When teachers were asked if they would participate in another telecollaborative project work experience like Learning Circles, 34 of the 39 (87.2 %) teachers responded “Yes,” five (12.8 %) teachers responded “No.” Teachers were requested to provide a writing explanation for their decision. Of the 39 teachers that participated in the survey question, 31 provided a response. Of the five teachers who responded “No,” only three teachers provided a response. One teacher wrote that she was not aware of any other project. Another wrote that she did not believe she would have enough time to do other types of projects, and a third teacher wrote that since it was her first time to participate in a telecollaborative project she could not speculate on what she would do in the future.
The responses of the teachers who answered, “Yes” were analyzed to look for potential coding categories, but again the responses tended to be either too general, listings of benefits, or were more speculative in nature. Six teachers stated that their reasons were similar to the question regarding their participation in Learning Circles
One strong theme that emerged addressed the benefits of telecollaborative project work. One teacher wrote, “It provides so many cross-cultural learning opportunities and integrated technology in a real setting.” Another teacher offered, “Telecollaborative projects improve the awareness of other cultures and change the routine of traditional education.” A third teacher stated that:
Designing a project and brainstorming and developing tasks is a very useful method for making my projects more student-centered, in addition to employing ICT in achieving the tasks. Also Students find meeting new students and making new friendships interesting and this motivates to work on the projects in order to be published.
Another teacher offered, “The work stretches students and overcomes cultural myopia.” While another believed that, “Students need to be involved with real projects with real audiences. It makes the learning more valuable.”
One teacher provided a general overview of telecollaborative project work by writing:
Many times I feel that when we use technology in the classroom it can be a little “stilted.” The telecollaborative sharing brings the technology to life and makes it more meaningful since the students have to be more disciplined…its not just chatting and teachers have an opportunity to get so many perspectives...which helps.
Another teacher who saw the long-range value of telecollaborative project work wrote, “People need to interact with one another, one way or the other. This method enables us to overcome political boundaries, economic constraints, etc. Exchange of cultural information makes us one person, united in thoughts and finally in action.” Other teachers expressed how they saw this as a new beginning to their teaching. One recorded, “I know better what my goals are. I'm very eager to work with others.” While another teacher expressed her determination by stating, “I will never give up-now I now how!”
Additional Responses
At the end of each survey, the participants were given the opportunity to share or express any information that they believed would be of interest or use to the research or the researchers. This information provided great insight into how the participants perceived their experience and what they were thinking about at the time of the survey.
Interim Survey I. Twenty-nine teachers responded with statements about their participation as well as questions and concerns. One example of a suggestion was:
The project and success of the group is as only strong as the participation. I believe the full benefit of such collaboration is not fully felt until after the circle closes...when there is enough time for reflection. So perhaps...one of the activities that can be made part of circle experience is a weekly reflection to the group, which can stimulate more discussion on pedagogy or help teachers feel more connected to each other in the circle.
Some participants expressed frustration such as: “I could not understand why my other fellow teachers are not sending messages” or “I would like to see more dialogue with other students from other schools online...is there a reason this is not happening?” Other participants gave a mixed view of what was going on in his/her Circle: “Every Learning Circle has its ups and downs and surprises... My children are really excited by our projects and are getting some really great learning about things in our neighborhood and around the world.” There were also some strong positive comments such as:
Through participating in the LC and interacting with teachers from different parts of the world I always gain a great deal of knowledge that I don’t think I can come to it any other way. I learn about what happens in schools around the world; how are we the same and how we are different.
One participant simply wrote: “It's the best project experience I have ever had.”
Interim Survey II. The last section of Interim Survey II again allowed participants the opportunity to share or express any information that they believed would be of interest or use to the research or the researchers. Twenty-seven teachers responded with statements about their participation. Some teachers were very proud of their accomplishments. One teacher wrote, “This is first time our school worked, and students has produced work with clear thought and conveyed it well.” The majority of these comments were surprisingly positive given the fact that there were many negative comments during the progress report section of the survey. Participants became very reflective and questioned how they could encourage more teachers to become involved in telecollaborative learning. They also lamented that there were students in different parts of the world who were not getting an opportunity to participate. One teacher wrote:
When I did talk to my colleagues about this experience they liked it. But only one of them showed his interest to try it. Because teachers are not familiar with ICT they cannot see how can they benefit from it as a new mean for teaching. Our teaching methodologies in public schools are still very traditional and not open to creativity and initiatives. Experiences like learning circles can permit teachers to integrate ICT in a pleasant way in their methodologies. Because the projects are based on students choices and students are using new means of communication they feel more motivated.
Another teacher wrote, “We enjoy being online but I feel that there is a lot of disadvantaged but talented students in other countries, especially in rural areas who can benefit a lot from these sessions. However, I do not know what can be done to assist these students.” Another teacher commented, “Ways should be found as to how more students can benefit from Learning Circles in the schools.”
Clearly participants were thinking of ways the process could work better for their local teaching situation. One participant commented, “It was difficult getting the collaboration in projects going. Perhaps our projects at first were more like parallel play than collaboration. I thought that collaboration involved discussing a common project with the same parameters. Our projects were similar, but not common. I would like to pursue something more common.” Another participant suggested, “While it might reduce creativity, I think the facilitator should be more assertive in defining what the final product should be. There could be a sort of template at the beginning and we would all know where we are to submit our part, and when, and how it would look.” Still another participant felt it was important to provide teachers with some techniques and skills of communicating with each other as well as to provide more student-to-student activities.
By and large the participants seemed to be pleased with their experience. One teacher wrote, “I enjoy being a part of these projects, and I hope to continue with them for some time.” Another was so delighted with the progress of her students that she wrote, “If I could, I would give the Nobel Prize for this telecollaborative project.”
Post Survey. The final section of the Post Survey provided the participants with one last opportunity to share or express any information that they believed would be of interest or use to the research or the researchers. Twenty-two teachers responded with statements that could be categorized as additional information, suggestions, endorsements, confessions, or thank you messages.
There were five teachers who provided suggestions. Three of them requested methods for more forms of collaboration. One teacher wrote, “I would like to see a protected discussion space developed for each learning circle. I use them extensively within my own classroom and they allow the students to pose ideas and ask questions. I like to see them making the connections, not just me.” Another wrote:
I think that the only thing I might want to express is being able to have real-time web-based classrooms between the members. My class and I had the opportunity to do this with a member of my circle and the students were so excited and so engaged. I would think this would be such a positive addition to the circle.
The third teacher expressed the hope, but acknowledged the difficulty by stating, “I think if there was a way to have a session for everyone at once... it could be awesome... though that is a difficult task as we are spread around so many time zones.” The fourth teacher who provided a suggestion wrote, “The iEARN Learning Circle is well-structured and detailed. However, following the same pattern or structure every time can become boring. I suggest the format or structure can be varied during some of the sessions.” The fifth teacher addressed a problem with age groups being too diverse:
I think it would be useful for the participants to be of the same age. This year for instance, my students in of high school were 14 and in the Circle there were 17-18-year-old students. I think it would be better to be of the same age (or at least 1 or 2 years difference).
Some teachers offered details to help put their experience in some type of context. One teacher wrote:
I was working with the class that is by some believed to be one of the worst on our school. I was pleasantly surprised that they like doing things that are not strictly school work, but they need constant encouragement; "they needed to be pushed," which becomes tiring for the mentor, especially towards the end.
Another teacher explained:
No Child Left Behind has put a strain on many teachers in the United States forcing teachers to focus on basics and forgetting why we really teach. I teach to help students become lifelong learners and problem solvers... No Child Left Behind, sadly, has meant less time to work on real learning!
One teacher provided a confession by stating, “Unfortunately, this past semester I feel that the expectations that I put on Learning Circle members to participate, I didn't meet myself. That was a little disappointing, but not entirely discouraging.” Lastly, one teacher reflected on her experience by writing:
I thoroughly enjoyed the Learning Circles even though I did not follow the requirements completely. Given that I work in a cyber school environment, some of the work we do is not conducive to our school situation. However, one of the other teachers in the circle reminded me that the point is to reach some goal for our students, and even if I didn't do everything I should have, if my kids got something positive from the process, I have done my job. That was good information to get. I also have a great plan for working through the circle again. I can't wait to get started on the next circle!
CHAPTER 5: THE CASE STUDY EXPERIENCE
Background Information
A second layer of information was collected as part of this research by closely following the successes and trials of a group of teachers who comprised one Circle group. A plan was developed to look for volunteers who were willing to have every aspect of their experience examined in order to build a detailed case study that captured the week-to-week activities and workings of the Learning Circle process. Teachers were asked to participate in all four online surveys just as the large group of participants. They were also asked to participate in an interview and to provide progress reports as needed. In addition, all the case study participants knew that the correspondence that was exchanged between the members of the group would be examined and used as an integral part of the case study. Lastly, each member was asked to be available to provide answers to additional questions that arose through the process. Chapter 5 provides an examination of each of the participants, a week-by-week summary of what happened, examinations of their responses to specific questions, and observations on their behavior.
Case Study Group
The seven teachers who participated in the case study group were elementary teachers who expressed interest in either Computer Chronicles or Places and Perspectives. These were the only elementary teachers that registered for these elementary Learning Circles themes, and they all volunteered to be part of the research group. Since there were not enough teachers for either theme to run by itself, the teachers were placed together and designated as a group that would be primarily a Places and Perspective Circle, but would also allow teachers some leeway to sponsor a project that focused on non-fictional writing that was not specifically related to geography.
The group was typical for an elementary Learning Circles group in that the majority of the participants were from the United States. Since Learning Circles are traditionally run in English, it is less common to have elementary aged children from countries where English is not the primary language and who are not comfortable with written English. At the same time, there are usually a few teachers in other countries that will find ways to make this work so that they can give their students a telecollaborative experience. An interesting aspect to this elementary group was that two of the United States classrooms were not from traditional public or private schools. One teacher taught a cyber school class that consisted of students from all over the state of Pennsylvania. The other teacher was a media specialist who taught in a charter school in Atlanta, Georgia that enrolled students from many diverse cultures who were in the United States because of their refugee status. The unique make-up of this group, the fact that four of the seven teachers had no experience with telecollaborative project work, and the potential challenges they would face made them an ideal group to study. The names that were used for each teacher and their teaching location are presented in Table 27.
Table 27
Case Study Participant Information
|Name Used in Study |Location |
|Teacher A (Group Facilitator) |Tennessee, USA |
|Teacher B |Oregon, USA |
|Teacher C |Ohio, USA |
|Teacher D |Georgia, USA |
|Teacher E |Philadelphia, USA |
|Teacher F |Morocco |
|Teacher G |Slovenia |
The participants had an average of 4.4 years of experience with telecollaborative project work. Three of the participants had no experience and one had less than one year. The remaining three participants had 6, 10, and 14 years of experience. The participants had an average of 8.4 years experience with ICT that ranged from 1 to 16 years (R=15). The case study group averaged 6.4 years experience with project-based learning methodologies that ranged from 0 to 15 years (R=15) experience.
Three of the participants described their level of technology integration as being at the Appropriation level: “I use technology and incorporate it constantly into my own work practices and classroom. My instruction focuses on the use of cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work.” Two of the participants described their integration at the Adaptation level: “I am thoroughly integrating technology into my traditional classroom practice. I use productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases, graphic programs, presentation tools, and content-specific software.” One participant identified his/her level at the Adoption level: “I am using technology to support my traditional instructional practices, but have not made any specific changes to those actual practices” and the remaining participant chose the Entry level: “I am still learning how to use and integrate technology.”
Table 28
Comparison of Large Group and Case Study Group
|Average Years of Experience |Large Group |Case Study Group |
| |(N=57) |(n=7) |
|Telelcollaborative Project Work |2.5 |4.4 |
|Percentage of Participants with Little or No Experience |57.9 |57.1 |
|ICT Use |5.2 |8.4 |
|Percentage of Participants with Little or No Experience |14.1 |14.3 |
|Project-based Learning Use |4.7 |6.4 |
|Percentage of Participants with Little or No Experience |15.8 |28.6 |
|Project-based Learning Profile | | |
|Mean |35.1 |33.9 |
|Median |35 |34 |
|Mode |38 |39 |
|Standard Deviation |5.10 |5.15 |
Table 28 displays a comparison between the large group of participants (N=57) and the case study group (n=7). The case study group was slightly more experienced than the large group, but the percentage of the participants with little or no telecollaborative project work experience was similar. The case study group’s Project-based Learning Profile rating was lower (33.9>>>>> End of Circle News............
iEARN Learning Circles
Barry Kramer
Learning Circles Coordinator
bskramer48@
bskramer@
Skype name: bskramer48
Appendix N
Project Idea Template
Hi Circle Members;
I have put together a simple Project Idea Template to help you present your Project Idea to your Circle members. You are welcome to add more detail, sections, or whatever else you need to describe your project. This template is intended as a beginning guide to help you get started.
Happy planning,
Barry
iEARN Learning Circles
Barry Kramer
Learning Circles Coordinator
===============================================
Project Idea Template
Learning Circle Group:
Sponsoring Teacher:
Sponsor School:
City:
Country:
Name of Project:
Goal Of The Project:
Type Of Writing Requested:
Description Of What You Are Looking For From Other Schools:
Example: Questions:
Story Prompts:
Detailed Instructions For Collecting Information:
Ideal Number Of Submissions From Each School:
Preferred Length Of Articles:
Deadline For Receiving Information (Circle deadline is December 5, 2008):
Appendix O
Circle News 4
LEARNING CIRCLE NEWS 4
Exchanging Work on Circle Projects
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
October 29, 2008
...ooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo....
Learning Circles are Rounding Out
...ooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo....
Are you getting ready to roll into project work?
The introductions and friendly letters need to give way to class projects.
If you have found new friends, and we hope you have, please send friendly
messages to their school e-mail directly and save the circle space for
work on projects. This is a group-to-group exchange for work on your
collaborative Circle projects and publications.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IF YOU HAVE NOT SENT YOUR PROJECT IDEA
NOW IS THE TIME TO SEND IT
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- curriculum instruction and assessment cia monthly update
- table of contents
- academic training opportunities
- university of georgia libraries
- investigating teachers expectations for using
- the netherlands programme for the institutional
- university of georgia
- report on agriculture syllabus for secondary schools in
- annotated web based multicultural resource directory
Related searches
- clear expectations for students
- classroom expectations for college students
- virtual classroom expectations for students
- classroom expectations for teachers
- student expectations for class
- classroom expectations for elementary school
- expectations for class
- learning expectations for students
- teachers expectations for students
- expectations for online learning
- rules and expectations for kids
- expectations for a class