Sherri Cianca · WebQuests One of the major reasons why Bernie Dodge (1997) and Tom March (2008) created WebQuests was to address the need for quality Internet use: quality use includes

Sherri Cianca

218

Cianca, S. (2010). Quality Webquests: Scaffolding pre-service teachers’ Webquest

construction. Teacher Education Quarterly, Special Online Edition. Retrieved from http://teqjournal.org/cianca.html

Sherri Cianca

219

Quality WebQuests:

Scaffolding Pre-Service

Teachers’ WebQuest Construction

By Sherri Cianca

Abstract

Though public schools in North America are connected to the internet, teachers in these

schools usually use technology for mediocre, routine tasks. WebQuest development holds

possibility for promoting an innovative, transformative use of technology if that

WebQuest focuses on high-level critical thinking. To date, poor WebQuests dominate the

internet, and teachers lack support in their attempts to create good WebQuests. This study

compares two instructional models of support. In comparing these models, the study

reflects on the characteristics of quality WebQuests and on scaffolds to bolster pre-

service teachers in their development of quality WebQuests. The results of the study

suggest that a superior model of instruction includes in-class scaffolds and a high-quality

exemplar.

Sherri Cianca

220

Quality WebQuests:

Scaffolding Pre-Service

Teachers’ WebQuest Construction

By Sherri Cianca

One hundred percent of the public schools in the United States are connected to the

worldwide web (NCES, 2005). As impressive as this statistic sounds, a closer examination

reveals that most teachers use technology for trivial, routine tasks that simply mirror existing,

traditional methods (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003; Ertmer, 2005). According to

March (2000b) the most common educational use of the Internet involves teacher-made

WebQuests, which are intended to guide students’ navigation of websites.

Though the intention may be educational, teachers who create WebQuests often

misunderstand or overlook the principles and function of true WebQuests (Vidoni & Maddux,

2002). The authors Zheng, Stucky, McAlack, Menchana & Stoddart (2005) state that many sites

that claim to be WebQuests are not true WebQuests at all, but rather, are little more than URL

worksheets where students simply fill in the blanks with information they found either on the

Web or in a book. Unfortunately, URL worksheets fail to challenge learners to transform

information into products that demonstrate in-depth understanding (Jonassen, Howland, Moore,

& Marra, 2003).

Some researchers blame teacher education programs (Doering, Hughes, & Huffman,

2003). They say teacher educators fail to train teachers in a meaningful use of technology that

promotes significant student learning (Russell, et al., 2003; Strudler, Archambault, Bendixen,

Anderson, Weiss, 2003). It may be reasonable, then, to target WebQuests as a means for training

teachers to use technology in a meaningful way that fosters significant student learning.

This study addresses the problem of teachers’ development of low-level WebQuests and

it attempts to offer scaffolds to teachers and pre-service teachers as they strive to create quality

WebQuests. With these goals in mind, the project studied the influence of two models of

instruction and the scaffolds found in each model. This paper reviews the attributes of a quality

WebQuest, describes instructional scaffolds, and suggests a model-specific scaffold for the

creation of good WebQuests.

Sherri Cianca

221

Research Questions

The study examined two models of instruction: Model C with a control group, Model E

with an experimental group. Model C involved written scaffolds in the form of instructor

feedback and peer and self-evaluation; Model E included in-class scaffolds and a sample

WebQuest to illustrate an exemplary product. Answers are sought for the following research

questions:

1. Which model of instruction engendered the highest quality of prospective

teachers’ WebQuests: instruction Model C with written feedback and peer and

self-evaluation or instruction Model E with in-class scaffolds and an example of

an exemplary product?

2. Which scaffolds hold the greatest potential for promoting pre-service teachers’

development of quality WebQuests: Written feedback? Peer Evaluation? Self-

Evaluation? In-class scaffolds? An example of an exemplary product?

3. How closely does the quality of participants’ WebQuests match the quality of the

participants’ other course assignments?

4. Which sections of the prospective teachers’ WebQuests are the strongest? Which

sections are the weakest? (See below for a description of the sections of a

WebQuest.)

Literature Review

Review of the literature begins with a discussion of WebQuests: how and why

WebQuests originated and the components of a WebQuest. To meet the function of true

WebQuests, this educational tool needs to challenge students to use and improve their critical

thinking skills (Vidoni & Maddux, 2002) and engage in deep understanding (Zheng, et. al., 2005;

Jonassen, et. al., 2003). With this emphasis in mind, this review explores the literature on critical

thinking and suggests how critical thinking can become a part of WebQuest construction. The

final topic addressed is constructivism, as I agree with the contention that WebQuests should

involve constructivist-based practices where students construct their own understanding in an

environment that challenges them to analyze, compare, and classify information and then to

debate and collaborate with their peers in decision-making (Strickland, 2005).

Sherri Cianca

222

WebQuests

One of the major reasons why Bernie Dodge (1997) and Tom March (2008) created

WebQuests was to address the need for quality Internet use: quality use includes a structured

format that leads to collaboration among students as they interact with, analyze, and synthesize

research-based, subject-specific information from sites in good working order. Because

WebQuests list the sites to be explored, students spend their time using information, as opposed

to spending hours reading unrelated, unsupported, faulty, or weak information on sites learners

find on their own. As a result, students are less distracted from the primary learning task

(Hassanien, 2006). When developed with deep learning as the goal and critical thinking as the

process, WebQuests facilitate students’ construction and application of new and relevant

knowledge (Zheng, et. al., 2005). A quality WebQuest challenges students to investigate age-

appropriate, real-life issues—a context often lacking in traditional lessons and textbooks (March

2000a). Researching real world information, interacting with that information, and analyzing

issues from various perspectives motivates students to get involved with issues that matter.

Improving students’ level of learning led to WebQuests becoming the most popular use of the

Web for educational purposes (March 2000b).

WebQuest Components/Sections. As learners analyze, synthesize, evaluate, transform,

and generalize information, the parts of a WebQuest work together to support a learner’s

thinking (Abu-Elwan, 2007; Simina & Hamel, 2005). According to Dodge (1997), a WebQuest

consists of six critical components. A synthesis of the literature leads to the following description

for each component. For a closer match with this study, the author added a problem statement

and points of view to the descriptions and a bibliography section. How each section might appear

in a WebQuest can be seen in Sample WebQuest: Vancouver 2010. To compare the following

description with one found on-line, see Brooks and Byles (2009).

1. Introduction. Statement of a problem. The introduction sets the topic in an

authentic environment. It motivates involvement, suggests possible viewpoints,

and challenges learners to solve a real-world problem.

2. Task: The task presents the assignment in an interesting, accessible manner. It

gives focus to the inquiry. To scaffold learners’ gradual increase in self-reliance,

the overall task is broken up into sub-tasks.

Sherri Cianca

223

3. Process: The process includes the roles students will assume, the step-by-step

procedures students will follow to complete the task, and the organizational

framework for research, synthesis, and final presentation of findings and

decisions. This section describes students’ roles (one for each member of the

three or four person team). Each role assumes a different perspective on the

problem. All students research common sites to build the same background

knowledge. Next, students become experts from the perspective of their assumed

roles. Finally, team members meet to collaboratively synthesize their findings. To

lend support for high-order thinking, the process gives checkpoints throughout,

allowing for differing degrees of consultation and coaching.

4. Resources: Resources are imbedded in the process section (see above).

Hyperlinks are given for the sites to explore to complete the task: informational

sites and multimodal resources. All team members explore a first set of links to

gain common background knowledge. Subsequent sets of links are categorized

by roles, and individuals explore only that set of links listed for that individual’s

role. Links enable each team member to gain both a unique perspective of the

problem and possible solutions for the problem.

5. Evaluation: The evaluation section contains the criteria to be used by both the

teacher and students to guide, support, and evaluate students’ progress.

6. Conclusion: The conclusion brings closure, calling on students to reflect on what

was learned and to discuss possible extensions and applications into other

domains.

7. Bibliography: The bibliography contains all references for other WebQuests

consulted, as well as the bibliographic information for other resources.

8. Teachers Pages: These pages can contain information on the standards addressed

by the WebQuests, a lesson plan, suggestions, additional websites, pre-requisites,

materials, classroom management tips and the like.

WebQuest and Cognitive Theories of Learning

When developed as intended, WebQuests challenge students to solve problems, think

deeply, and better make sense of the world. To the cognitive theorist, to learn is to better

understand the world and to change our intended behavior as a result of that understanding

Sherri Cianca

224

(Woolfolk, 2001). WebQuests prompt students to build background knowledge and

understanding of a situation, to formulate a response or solution to a problem, and then to

actively address that problem using a real-world context.

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), who revised Bloom’s (1956) original taxonomy,

categorized the cognitive domain into six levels: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate,

and create. Good WebQuests pose a problem and then lead students to consider various

perspectives, ramifications, and solutions to that problem. In the process, a good WebQuest will

challenge students to function in the highest levels of the cognitive domain: 1) students analyze

the information on websites to determine which information is cogent to their study, 2) they

evaluate the strength, worth, and relevance of information to their own study, their own

perspective, and 3) students work together to synthesize their findings and create a valid

argument for addressing the problem.

The criteria for WebQuest quality is closely aligned to at least two dimensions of critical

thought: a) generating solutions to problems and b) developing one’s perspective in a fair-

minded way that explores, analyzes and evaluates alternative beliefs, arguments, and points of

view (Paul, Binker, Jensen, & Kreklau, 1997). To develop WebQuests with these dimensions

requires pre-service teachers to think in these dimensions, or as Chambers (1988) states, to teach

for critical thinking, teachers need to engage in critical thinking themselves.

WebQuest and Constructivist Learning Design

To the constructivist, people construct their own understanding of the world, and they do

so through experience and reflection (Kolb, 1984). Constructivist learning design calls for the

establishment of situations that 1) arrange for student explanations, 2) group students for

collaborative engagement, 3) are ripe with questions to keep students thinking, 4) provide

opportunities for students to reflect on and then exhibit their understanding (Gagnon & Collay,

2006) and to engage in authentic situations. According to Vygotsky (1986) scaffolding helps the

learner build depths of understanding. During their engagement in WebQuests, students are

grouped for interaction, are called on to explain their findings and thought processes, are driven

by a quest to find answers to questions and solutions to problems, and through it all, are scaffold

with particular sites to explore and with periodic checks to guide their progress. WebQuest

requires students to reflect on many perspectives. After discussing and debating their findings,

students come to conclusions based on solid evidence, and then they disseminate their findings

Sherri Cianca

225

and decisions to others. WebQuest learners become involved in authentic situations as they

assume roles of adults, tackle problems adults attempt to solve, and in the use of resources adults

use to solve problems. The products students create mirror the products adults create as

advocates of change. As a result, learners view their learning as more relevant, more connected

to life (March, 2008).

Methodology

This study is an action research project; and as such, it aims at gathering relevant,

practical knowledge that can be applied to the researcher’s own classroom teaching (Borg, Gall,

& Gall, 1993). With the goal of improving my own teaching, I proposed two models of

instruction and I sought to determine the impact those models would have on pre-service

teachers’ WebQuest construction. I collected and analyzed data using qualitative methods, and I

used content analysis to identify the levels of quality attained by participants’ WebQuests.

Setting and Participants

This study, conducted in a Western New York university, spanned a two-year (four-

semester) period where I taught twelve sections of the same methods course. Each semester, I

taught one section of the course to undergraduate students and two sections of the course to

graduate students. The undergraduates were in the last semester of a four-year concurrent

program; the graduates were in the last semester of a one-year master’s program.

Though the study spanned two years (four semesters), the study compares only the last year’s

WebQuests (last two semester). I labeled the fall-semester participants the control group and the

spring-semester participants the experimental group.

Of the 86 participants, 48% (n = 41) were in the control group and 52% (n = 45) were in

the experimental group. The total of 28% (n = 24) undergraduates consisted of an equal number

50% (n = 12) in both the control group and the experimental group. The total of 72% (n = 62)

master’s students were made up of 47% (n = 29) in the control group and 53% (n = 33) in the

experimental group. Each semester, graduate students were in two different classes: I labeled

these Subgroup A Grads and Subgroup B Grads. Each semester, the Subgroup A Grads met

Monday nights and the Subgroup B Grads met Wednesday nights. Each semester, the

undergraduates met Tuesday mornings. The average age of the undergraduates was 23 years old;

whereas, the average age of the graduates was 32 years old. The average age of participants in

the control group (29 years old) was essentially the same as the average age of the participants in

Sherri Cianca

226

Figure 1

Study Participants

86 Participants

Control Group

(Model C)

Experimental

Group

(Model E)

48% (n = 41) 52% (n = 45)

Undergrads (n =

12)

Subgroup A Grads

(n = 12)

Subgroup B Grads

(n = 17)

Undergrads (n =

12)

Subgroup A Grads

(n = 12)

Subgroup B Grads

(n = 21)

the experimental group (30 years old).

To test for homogeneity between the control group and the experimental group, I

compared participants’ scores on other course assignments: marks participants earned for other

assignments completed in this methods course. I conducted an independent-sample t-test and

found no significant differences between the control group and the experimental group.i This

suggests that the two groups were evenly matched in this area as well.

WebQuest Assignment and Instruction Models

Instruction for both models. I used instruction Model C with the control group and

instruction Model E with the experimental group. I introduced both groups to WebQuests in the

same way: with both I used an interactive mini-lesson based on the Dodge’s (2009) model.

To begin the introduction to WebQuests, I broke students into home groups of four

students each. Each student in a home group chose one of the following roles:

1) Technology Expert. This role focused on the number of websites, that all sites

are up and running, that the sites have colorful pictures, animation, videos, and

sound bites.

Sherri Cianca

227

2) Scholar. This role was concerned that the WebQuest involves students in high-

level thinking such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creative expression.

3) Sociologist. This role cared about group work, collaborative engagement,

discussion, and consensus.

4) Business manager. This role narrowed in on the smooth functioning of the

WebQuest, if the time spent is worth the benefit derived, and the organizational

framework.

After choosing their roles, home group members broke into specialty groups: a group of

all technology experts, a group of scholars, group of sociologists and a group of business

managers. Specialty groups analyzed five different WebQuests from the perspective of their

occupational role and the concerns of that role. For the WebQuests that participants analyzed,

see Dodge (2009). Specialty groups discussed the features of each WebQuest according to that

role’s specific criteria for quality. They discussed, debated, and finally decided on how they

would categorize the WebQuests from the best to the worst. Members of each specialty group

then returned to their home groups. Home group members discussed and debated which

WebQuests were the best and which were the worst, and why. After much discussion, home

groups reached a consensus and categorized the WebQuests from best to worst. Next, home

groups listed their choices on the white board and members from each home group defended

why they put the WebQuest in the position they did. Groups hammered out their reasons and,

finally, a consensus was reached, and one WebQuest emerged as the best and another as the

worst.

To conclude, I gave students the task of listing the attributes of a quality WebQuest.

Groups recorded the attributes; and then, going around the room, each attribute listed was

verbalized. At this point, I passed out a copy of the WebQuest Rating Scale (see Appendix A) to

each student, and we compared the criteria on the rating scale to the criteria they listed on the

white boards.

Throughout, the process was deemed important. It was through the process that

participants from both Model C and Model E learned the composition of WebQuests, and they

began to understand the attributes of a quality WebQuest.

Instruction for the Model C. After the above introduction to WebQuest, participants for the

control group completed the following out-of-class activities (Model C):

Sherri Cianca

228

1. Participants worked independently out-of-class to create a WebQuest. They had

an open invitation to meet privately with the instructor, but primarily, they

worked on their own, using the sample WebQuests (see above) and the WebQuest

Rating Scale (see Appendix B) as their guide.

2. Each participant conducted a self-evaluation using the WebQuest Rating Scale.

They made revisions to their WebQuests and sent a copy to the three peers

assigned to work together.

3. Each participant received three peer-evaluations, using the WebQuest Rating

Scale. I formed participants into groups of four. Each group member emailed the

other members of their group a copy of their WebQuest and group members rated

peers’ WebQuests using the WebQuest Rating Scale.

4. Prospective teachers made revisions to their WebQuests. A half hour of class

time was dedicated to discussion and in class questions and answers, especially

over common problem areas. The participants revised their WebQuests.

5. Each participant completed and submitted a second self-evaluation using the

WebQuest Rating Scale.

6. Participants submitted rough drafts to the instructor, and then received feedback

from instructor. I sent each participant detailed, in-depth feedback for each

section of their WebQuest.

7. Participants made final revisions and submitted their final WebQuests.

Instruction for Model E. The next semester, I changed my instruction. Model E

instruction grew out of my discontent with Model C instruction. I struggled with the lack of

critical feedback participants received from their peers, and I struggled with my own cost in time

and labor to give feedback on rough drafts. Participants’ apparent need for such extensive

feedback suggested that most lacked sufficient knowledge to construct quality WebQuests

without on-going support. Model E emerged as an alternative model of instruction: to give

support to pre-service teachers while reducing demands on the instructor.

I weighed the benefits of the WebQuest assignment against existing in-class activities and

determined that WebQuest creation was worthy of increased in-class focus. I replaced the Model

C out-of-class activities with the following in-class activities:

Sherri Cianca

229

1. Participants received an exemplar or prototype to benchmark top-level

proficiency. The exemplar was much like the sample found in Appendix A. My

expectations are a bit different than those found on any of the sample WebQuests

participants analyzed during the introduction activity (see above). The sample

like that found in Appendix A is more inline with my expectations. I include this

sample rather than my own that the reader might see the quality of WebQuest a

preservice teacher is capable of creating.

2. Participants worked on their WebQuests in class: I dedicated two additional in-

class hours to WebQuest creation. The two hours were spread over two class

periods.

3. As the instructor, I circulated to give prompts, ask questions to scaffold and guide,

and give words of encouragement. I gave them the ―go ahead‖ or gave assistance

as participants completed the following checkpoints:

Introduction is problem-based.

Knows how to create a PowerPoint and how to hyperlink.

Task relates to the problem posed in the introduction.

Process describes students’ roles, included the function of each role in the

real world, and gives a perspective for each role.

Resources: check that the first set of hyperlinks is conducive to building

students’ background knowledge of the topic.

4. Participants worked out-of-class to complete their final WebQuests.

An analysis of participants’ WebQuests would reveal the differences between the WebQuests

created under instruction Model E and those created under instruction Model C.

Data Collection and Data Analysis

Data were collected throughout the study in the form of observation reports, anecdotal

records, final WebQuest submissions, and checks along the way (rough draft for Model C and

five checkpoints for Model E). The primary data reported in this paper relates to the quality of

participants’ final WebQuests. As is expounded on below, to determine WebQuest quality, I

began by identifying the criteria found in assessment tools developed by others (Bellofatto, Bohl,

Casey, Krill & Dodge, 2001; eMints National center, 2006; Hassanien, 2006). From these

Sherri Cianca

230

samples, I adopted the criteria they listed as important, added other criteria to further clarify my

expectations, and developed what I considered a valid and reliable evaluation tool.

Evaluation Tool. I developed a WebQuest Rating Scale to guide participants’ WebQuest

construction and to measure WebQuest quality. To generate the rating scale, I perused and

synthesized elements from others’ WebQuest assessment rubrics (Bellofatto, et al., 2001; eMints

National Center, 2006; Hassanien, 2006). Bellofatto and others’ (2001) rubric includes

descriptors for each section of the WebQuest: for example, visual appeal, mechanical aspects,

relevance and social importance, relationship to standards, clarity, assignment of roles,

timeliness of links, and evaluation criteria. eMints National Center (2006) includes an emphasis

on graphic elements, spelling and grammar, compelling questions, clarity of tasks and process,

group work, and quality of resources. I tested all criteria by evaluating two hundred examples of

WebQuest found on the internet, and then refined the rating scale to fit what I felt is critical for a

quality WebQuest, retaining some criteria, rewording other criteria, and adding some criteria of

my own (See Appendix B).

I developed an additional assessment scheme: the WebQuest Scoring Rubric. The rubric

served as an efficient, effective, holistic means to evaluate and describe ranges of performance.

To compose the rubric, I took key criteria from the WebQuest Rating Scale (See Appendix B:

WebQuest Scoring Rubric).

I used the WebQuest Scoring Rubric to assess each participant’s WebQuest five times on

five different occasions. To triangulate my data for improved qualitative research reliability, two

other university professors who are knowledgeable about WebQuest quality conducted a separate

review of participants’ WebQuests.

In the midst of their analysis, one of the outside markers requested samples for the first

three sections of the rubric. In response, I compiled exemplars for various levels of proficiency

for the more subjective criteria (see Appendix C). The outside markers and I then completed

separate analyses using the WebQuest Scoring Rubric and accompanying exemplars.

I found the differences between the three markers were insignificant: p = .663 (between

groups’ analysis of variance). Though my mean scores for all sections of the WebQuests were

higher than either of the outside evaluators, the overall total and the categorization into levels of

quality were close enough to render an insignificant difference among markers, thus establishing

high inter-rater reliability.

Sherri Cianca

231

Results

Through this research study, I sought answers to four questions. In this section, I address

each of those four questions.

Research Question One

The following research question set the parameters of the study:

Which model of instruction engendered the highest quality of prospective

teachers’ WebQuests: instruction Model C with written feedback and peer and

self-evaluation or instruction Model E with in-class scaffolds and an exemplary

product sample?

To determine an answer to this question, I called on two outside markers to join me as I rated

participants’ WebQuests using the WebQuest Scoring Rubric. Working independently, we rated

the WebQuests on their introduction, task, process, resources, and overall content.

Compiling and comparing the data, I found the control group WebQuests were of lower

quality than the experimental group’s WebQuests. See the graph in Figure 2 (determined by

running a two-way, between-groups ANOVA). As Figure 2 suggests, both the control group

and the experimental group show a very small difference between the three subgroups:

SubGroup A graduates, SubGroup B graduates, and Undergraduates.

Figure 2

SubGroups’ WebQuest Quality

Sherri Cianca

232

An analysis of the graphs found in Figure 2 showed a very small statistical difference

between the three subgroups. In contrast, the difference between the control group and

experimental group as a whole was statistically significant.ii See Table 1. To determine the

statistical variance between groups, I ran a statistical analysis (ANOVA).

Table 1

Control Group and Experimental Group’s WebQuest Mean Scores

Group N WebQuest Mean

Control 41 2.68 (67%)

Experimental 45 3.44 (86%)

The WebQuest mean for the control group was 2.68 (67%), while the WebQuest mean for the

experiential group was 3.44 (86%). This data suggests the WebQuests created by the

experimental group and instruction Model E are of higher quality than the WebQuests created by

the control group and instruction Model C.

Research Question Two

The second research question asked the following:

Which instructional scaffolds hold the greatest potential for promoting pre-

service teachers’ development of quality WebQuests: Written feedback? Peer

Evaluation? Self-Evaluation? In-class scaffolds? A sample of an exemplary

product?

To determine which scaffold made the biggest difference in WebQuest quality, I began by

separating the variables for Model E. The first variable, in-class scaffolds, could be isolated into

three categories based on participants in-class attendance: those absent both class periods

(received no in-class scaffolds), those present one class period (received a moderate amount of

in-class scaffolds), and those present two class periods (received all in-class scaffolds they

sought).

Attendance records show that 2 students were absent both periods of in-class instruction,

9 students received one hour of instruction, and 34 students were present the entire two hours.

These numbers are too low and too different from one another to determine any significant

correlation between WebQuest quality and time in class. Even so, when I looked at WebQuest

quality among subgroups there was no significant difference between the mean qualities of their

Sherri Cianca

233

WebQuests. The worst WebQuest came from a participant who was absent both class periods,

and one of the best WebQuests came from the other student who was absent both class periods.

The differences in quality between the WebQuests created after one hour of in-class time and

two hours of class time were insignificant, though the data may not be reliable since I spent extra

time the second hour with those participants who were absent the first hour to help them catch

up.

Since all prospective teachers in the experimental group received the prototype and all

participants in the control group did not, this variable might be considered the variable

responsible for the increase in WebQuest quality between Models C and E. Additional research

into this variable needs to be conducted before any conclusive statements can be made

concerning the effect of a prototype.

To conclude, individual interventions resisted analysis; and so, I could not determine

which scaffold had the greatest effect on WebQuest quality. Consequently, for this study, the

scaffolds will be considered in terms of sets of scaffolds rather than individual scaffolds.

Research Question Three

The third research question asked the following:

How closely does the quality of prospective teachers’ WebQuests match the

quality of participants’ other course assignments?

First, I tallied up the scores on other course assignments and found the difference in quality was

minimal and insignificant between the two groups (p = .309). For the control group, the mean

for ―other course assignments‖ was 92% and for the experimental group, the mean for ―other

course assignments‖ was 91%. These percentages suggest that ―other course assignment‖

quality was essentially the same for both groups.

Next, I compared the mean for the WebQuest assignment with the mean for ―other course

assignments‖. I found the difference in assignments was significantly different (p < .005).iii

Then I compared the differences for each group. I found the control group showed a

significantly larger difference between WebQuest quality and the quality of ―other course

assignments.‖ Though the experimental group also showed a large difference, that difference

was not as profound as the difference for the control group.iv

For the control group, the mean for

the WebQuest was 67% and the mean for the ―other course assignments‖ was 92%--a difference

Sherri Cianca

234

of 25%. Whereas, for the experimental group, the mean for the WebQuests was 86% and the

mean for the ―other course assignments‖ was 91%--a difference of 5%. See Table 2 below.

According to the means, the WebQuest quality for both groups of participants was lower

than the level of quality achieved in other course assignments. However, WebQuests created by

the experimental group were higher in quality than the control group WebQuests and closer to

the quality of work participants produced in other course assignments.

Table 2

Comparison of Mean Scores for Control Group and Experimental Group

Group N WebQuest

Mean

“Other Course

Assignment”

Mean

Mean

Difference

Control 41 67% 92% 25%

Experimental 45 86% 91% 5%

Research Question Four

The fourth research question asked the following:

Which sections of the prospective teachers’ WebQuests are the strongest? Which

sections were the weakest?

See Table 3 for a comparison of WebQuest mean quality between groups (control and

experimental) and sections (introduction, task, process, resources, and content).

Table 3

Comparison of the Mean Scores for WebQuest Quality across Sections

Introduction Task Process Resources Content

Control 62% 63% 57% 78% 73%

Experimental 83% 84% 84% 90% 89%

For both groups, the strongest section was the resource section. The weakest section was

divided: for the control group, the weakest section was the process section, but for the

experimental group, the introduction, task, and process were all close.

Sherri Cianca

235

Discussion and Summary

The results of this study suggest that when this instructor chose between an instruction

model with in-class scaffolds and exemplary product samples (Model E) and an instruction

model with written feedback and peer and self-evaluation (Model C), the instruction model with

in-class scaffolds and exemplary product samples resulted in higher quality WebQuests.

Though it evades statistical verification, anecdotal records suggest that the timing and the

interactive nature of feedback given for Model C may have been a factor. That is, Model C

participants received extensive written feedback, but that feedback was given near the end of the

project; and, except for five participants who came to my office for help, the submission of the

rough draft was the first time I became aware of pre-service teachers’ progress. In contrast,

Model E participants developed WebQuests in the midst of a community with the availability of

immediate verbal feedback. Model E gave me the opportunity to interact with participants,

giving prompts, redirecting with questions, offering encouragement, answering queries, leading

whole-class mini-lessons, and facilitating discussions when participants dealt with similar

problems or issues. In the place of written peer-assessment, I encouraged participants to ask for

and give oral feedback to one another. When participants in the control group came to an

impasse, I was unaware of their struggles. Whereas, when participants in the experimental group

came to an impasse, I was available and peers were available to help struggling participants

refocus.

When the control group asked for a prototype, I resisted, and a few of the pre-service

teachers expressed frustration in their uncertainty over expectations. I was reticent to give

prospective teachers a prototype that exemplified perfect completion of the assignment. I

assumed such a model would rob pre-service teachers, especially those in the master’s program,

of high-level thinking and would, in a sense, be tantamount to doing students’ work for them.

By the time I developed Model E, I reconsidered. I began to equate the do-it-on-your-own

attitude to abandoning students who need direction. Rather than a mental crutch that thwarts

participants’ high-level thinking, I began to view prototypes as a means to clarify and specify

expectations and help participants internalize key elements of exemplar quality. I am now

convinced that giving a prototype makes expectations clear and that such a scaffold aligns

teaching and learning. Or as Loughrans and colleagues advocate, teacher training is best when

Sherri Cianca

236

taught using strategies teachers would use as they instruct their own students (Loughrans,

Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russel, 2004).

Some evidence suggests the scaffolds characterizing Model E may not be necessary for

all pre-service teachers. Not all participants in the control group needed alternative scaffolds.

Twenty-two percent of the control group participants created very high quality WebQuest,

earning 95% to 100%, without being exposed to the additional scaffolds found in Model E. As

well, a few participants in the experimental group reacted negatively to spending in-class time

working on WebQuests. Though all prospective teachers but two expressed a positive attitude,

two undergraduate participants stated that they would rather work on the assignment at home;

one said working in class was distracting. Nonetheless, class time was used effectively, and the

effort devoted to in-class scaffolding of participants’ progress may have been a factor in the

meaningful use of technology. Continuing research is needed to determine if this supposition is

well founded.

An analysis of anecdotal records indicate participants needed scaffolds the most in four

areas: a) determining a real-life problem-solving situation, b) becoming aware of alternative

perspectives for a problem, c) determining roles, and d) working with PowerPoint and

hyperlinks. The first two struggles were most frequently resolved by suggesting participants

conduct further research to gain a better understanding of their topic. The third struggle was best

resolved by using prompts to get participants brainstorming possible occupations and/or persons

involved or interested in the problem. Close to one-fourth of the pre-service teachers needed

help with PowerPoint, and more than one-third requested assistance inserting hyperlinks.

Knowledgeable peers helped the most with this fourth struggle.

The WebQuest Rating Scale provided valuable criteria for separating the assignment into

straightforward, manageable components—though I plan to revise the rating scale to better

emphasize the need for alternative perspectives. The WebQuest Scoring Rubric was valuable in

many ways: in its economy, its attention to the authenticity of problem-based learning, and its

support for alternative perspectives. Next time I teach the course, I plan to give pre-service

teachers a copy of this rubric, along with exemplars for the rubric (Appendix C).

I plan to continue my research on this topic this coming year. In that study, I will

separate the various scaffolds and provide a forum for participants to articulate which scaffolds

they found most beneficial.

Sherri Cianca

237

Concluding Remarks

We teachers must analyze our present practices to seek ways to improve instruction

(Loughrans, et. al, 2004). In this age of technology, it is essential that educational use of

technology is meaningful and is used to promote significant student learning. Just as I have

learned and been inspired by other instructors’ research findings, I hope the sharing of my

research will touch the palate of other teacher educators. May they too investigate ways to

scaffold pre-service teachers’ significant uses of technology. As well, I hope this article will

inspire teachers, both pre-service and in-service, to view the Internet as an impetus for high-

level, critical thinking, especially in the creation of dynamic, real-world, problem-solving

WebQuests.

References

Abu-Elwan, R. (2007). The use of WebQuest to enhance the mathematical problem-posing skills

of pre-service teachers. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics

Education; 14(1), 31-39.

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:

Longman.

Bellofatto, L., Bohl, N., Casey, M., Krill, M., & Dodge, B. (2001). A rubric for evaluating

WebQuests. Retrieved from http://WebQuest.sdsu.edu/WebQuestrubric.html

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain.

New York: David McKay Co. Inc.

Borg, W., Gall, J., & Gall, M. (1993). Applying educational research: A practical guide. New

York: Longman.

Brooks, S. & Byles, B. (2009). Internet4Classrooms. Retrieved from

http://www.internet4classrooms.com/using_quest.htm#definition

Chambers, J. (1988). Teaching thinking through the curriculum—where else? Educational

Leadership, 45, 4-6.

Dodge, B. (2009). A WebQuest about WebQuests. Retrieved San Diego State University

http://webquest.sdsu.edu/webquestwebquest-es.html

Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved from San Diego State University:

http://WebQuest.sdsu.edu/about_WebQuests.html

Sherri Cianca

238

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with

technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342-361.

eMINTS National Center. Professional development for teachers by teachers from the

University of Missouri: Rubric/scoring guide. Retrieved from

http://www.emints.org/WebQuest/rubric.shtml

Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology

integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.

Gagnon, G., & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design for classroom teaching.

Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hassanien, A. (2006). An evaluation of the WebQuest as a computer-based learning tool.

Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 11(2), 235-250.

Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with

technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd

ed.) Upper Saddle River, NU: Merrill

Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Loughrans, J., Hamilton, L., LaBoskey, V. & Russel, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook

of self-study of teaching and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

March, T. (2008). Assessing best WebQuests. Retrieved from

http://bestWebQuests.com/bWebQuest/matrix.asp

March, T. (2000a). The 3 R’s of WebQuests: Let’s keep them real, rich, and relevant.

Multimedia Schools, Nov/Dec. Retrieved from

http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/nov00/march.htm

March, T. (2000b). WebQuests 101: Tips on choosing and assessing WebQuests. MultiMedia

Schools, 7(5), 55-58.

National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES]. (2005). Internet access in US public schools

and classrooms: 1994-2003. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/

Paul, R., Binker, J, Jensen, K. & Kreklau, H. (1997). Critical thinking handbook. Rohnert Park,

CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking

Sherri Cianca

239

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L.M & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology

use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher

Education, 54(4), 297-310.

Simina, V. & Hamel, M. (2005). CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuest

in a project-driven language learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 217-228.

Strickland, J. (2005). Using WebQuest to teach content: Comparing instructional strategies.

Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm

Strudler, N., Archambault, L., Bendixen, L., Anderson, D., Weiss, R. (2003). Project THREAD:

Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 51(1), 57-72.

Vidoni, K. & Maddox, C. (2002). WebQuests: Can they be used to improve critical thinking

skills in students? Computers in the Schools, 19 (1/2), 101-117.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language, Revised Edition, Kozulin, A. (Ed.). Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology, (8th

edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Zheng, R., Stucky, B., McAlack, M. Menchana, M. and Stoddart, S. (2005). WebQuest learning

as perceived by higher–education learners. TechTrends, 49 (4), 41-49.

iMarks for the control group (M = 90.84, SD = 8.227) and the experimental group (M = 92.29,

SD = 7.291); t (84) = -.86, p = .39 (two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means

(mean difference = -1.15, 95% Cl: -4.8 to 1.9) was very small (eta squared = 0.0087).

ii F (1, 80) = 20.2, p <.0005. The effect size (partial eta squared = .2) suggests a large effect size between

groups: the experimental groups’ WebQuests were significantly higher in quality than the WebQuests of

the control group.

iii To investigate statistical differences in quality between WebQuests and other course

assignments, I performed a one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA). The multivariate tests showed a statistically significant difference between the

WebQuest quality and other course assignment quality. This was shown on the combined

dependent variables, F (2, 83) = 15.6, p < .0005; Wilks’ Lambda = .73; partial eta squared = .27.

iv To compare variances of each group separately, I conducted one-way repeated measures

ANOVA with a Bonferroni adjustment. The control group showed a significantly large

Sherri Cianca

240

difference between WebQuest quality and quality of other course assignments: F (1, 40) = 61.4,

p = .000; Wilks’ Lambda = .39; partial eta squared = .606. The experimental group also showed

a large difference, though not as large as the control group. For the experimental group, the

difference between WebQuest quality and the quality of other course assignments was as

follows: F (1, 44) = 6.48, p = .015; Wilks’ Lambda = .87; partial eta squared = .13.

Appendix A

WebQuest Rating Scale

0—Absent 1—Poor 2—Fair 3—Good 4—Excellent Performance

Level Criteria Scoreiv

INTRODUCTION

0 1 2 3 4

1. The introduction describes a compelling real-life problem or issue that inspires students to make a positive change in the world.

/4

TASK

0 1 2 3 4 2. Task can be referenced to state/provincial standards.

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

3. To answer the essential problem/issue requires students to function one of the top three levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

/4 4. The learner is encouraged to invent his or her own solution.

PROCESS

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Clarity 5. Every step in the process is clearly stated.

6. Most students would know exactly where they are at each step of the process and know what to do next.

7. Activities are designed to transform students’ thinking from basic knowledge to the construction of new meaning through high-level thinking.

Richness 8. Different roles are assigned to help students understand different perspectives and to share responsibility in accomplishing the task.

Process One 9. Contains hyperlinks for all team members to build background knowledge related to the problem.

0 1 2 3 4

Process Two 10. Roles are relevant to the problem posed in the Introduction.

0 1 2 3 4 11. Each role has a number role-specific hyperlinks (at least 5). /4

RESOURCES

0 1 2 3 4

Annotated 12. Resources are annotated.

0 1 2 3 4

Relevance 13. There is a clear and meaningful connection between all resources and the information needed for students to accomplish the task.

0 1 2 3 4 14. Checkpoints along the way scaffold and guide students’ progress.

Sherri Cianca

241

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Quality 15. Varied resources provide enough meaningful information for students to think deeply and from different perspectives.

Mechanical Aspects

16. All websites are up and running

Navigation and Flow 17. Clear navigation and flow to all websites.

/20 18. It is clear what to do when you get to the site.

CONCLUSION

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

19. Gives an overview or review of key ideas.

/4 20. Challenges students to transfer their learning to other topics and issues and/or challenges students to improve a situation studied.

EVALUATION

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

21. The assessment tool clearly measures students’ acquisition of knowledge, concepts, and/or skills.

/8 22. Criteria for success are found on a rubric, checklist, rating scale or other student-friendly assessment form.

CONTENT: Conceptual Knowledge and Skills

0 1 2 3 4

23. The WEBQUEST is conducive to substantially increasing students’ conceptual knowledge and/or skills for the topic studied.

/12

OVERALL

0 1 2 3 4

Appropriateness 24. Is age/grade appropriate

/4

0 1 2 3 4

World Changing 25. Throughout, the WebQuest inspires students to make a positive change in the world.

/10

0 1 2 3 4

Focus 26. The focus is on using information, not looking for it, and supporting learners’ thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation

/10

TOTAL: _______/80

Sherri Cianca

242

Appendix B

WebQuest Scoring Rubric Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Introduction

(Problem

Statement)

Describes a

compelling real-

life problem that

inspires students to

make a positive

change in the

world. More than

one perspective is

considered.

There is an

introduction, but it

fails to include a

problem.

The introduction

includes an

unrealistic or weak

real-life problem

and fails to explain

why a situation is a

problem.

The introduction

includes a real-life

problem, but fails

to include why the

situation is a

problem. The

introduction

presents only one

perspective to the

problem.

The introduction

includes a compelling

real-live problem. It

gives an overview of

why this is a problem

or suggests how

dealing with the

problem could bring

about positive change.

The introduction

suggests more than

one perspective.

Task: The products

become a means

for students to

disseminate their

findings and

decisions

regarding the

problem and the

promotion of

positive change.

The task requires

students to

function at a high

level of Bloom’s

taxonomy.

The task appears

unrelated to the

problem or the task

is not one found in

real life. The task

fails to call on

students to

disseminate

findings, decisions

or reasons for

decisions.

The task is weak in

relation to the

problem or weak

in relation to a

real-life task. The

task calls on

students to

disseminate

information at the

lowest level of

Bloom’s

Taxonomy:

knowledge.

The task is related

to the problem and

is a real-life task

that promotes

positive change.

The task calls on

students to

function at the

comprehension

and/or application

level of Bloom’s

taxonomy.

The task is related to

the problem and is a

real-live task

promotes positive

change. The task calls

on students to

function at the

analysis, synthesis,

and/or evaluation

level of Bloom’s

taxonomy.

Process:

Organizational

framework and

activities are from

various

perspectives

(roles) and are

designed to

transform students’

thinking from

basic knowledge to

new meaning

through high-level

thinking.

Organizational

framework &

activities fail to be

conducive to

transforming

students’ thinking.

No specific roles,

or roles are

unrelated and/or

irrelevant to the

problem.

Organization, roles

and activities

promote only basic

knowledge. Roles

assume only one

problem-related

perspective.

Organization, roles

and activities

promote

construction of

new meaning at

the comprehension

and/or application

level. Roles

assume two

problem-related

perspectives.

Organization, roles

and activities clearly

promote the

construction of new

meaning through

high-level thinking.

Roles assume at least

three problem-related

perspectives.

Sherri Cianca

243

Resources: Varied

and numerous

resources provide

enough

information for

students to think

deeply and from

different

perspectives.

There are no web-

based links, links

are unrelated to the

topic, or they lack

meaningful

information.

Resources offer

one perspective.

Meaningful

information can be

gleaned from at

least six resources.

Resources offer

two perspectives.

Meaningful

information can be

gleaned from at

least nine

resources.

Resources provide

highly meaningful

information from at

least three

perspectives and at

least twelve resources.

Overall Content:

Taken as a whole,

the WebQuest is

highly conducive

to increasing

students’

conceptual

knowledge and/or

skills for the topic.

Taken as a whole,

the WEBQUEST

is not conducive to

building students

conceptual

knowledge and/or

skills for the topic

under study.

Taken as a whole,

the WEBQUEST

is somewhat

conducive to

building students

conceptual

knowledge and/or

skills for the topic

under study.

Taken as a whole,

the WEBQUEST

is conducive to

building students

conceptual

knowledge and/or

skills for the topic

under study.

Taken as a whole, the

WEBQUEST is

highly conducive to

building students

conceptual knowledge

and/or skills for the

topic under study.

Appendix C

Exemplars for WebQuest Quality

Topic: the Great Lakes

Introduction: The introduction describes a compelling real-life problem or issue that inspires

students to make a positive change in the world.

Level 1: There is an introduction, but it fails to include a problem.

A variety of fish live in the Great Lakes. You will learn about fish and fishing in the Great

Lakes and will report your findings to the government.

Level 2: The introduction includes a non-realistic or weak problem or fails to explain why a

situation is a problem.

You want to be a fisherman on the Great Lakes. To decide what type of fisherman to be, you

need to find out more about the kind of fishing that takes place on the Great Lakes. Find out

which type of fish sell for the most money and where you can sell your fish.

Sherri Cianca

244

Level 3: The introduction includes a real-life problem, but fails to include why the situation is a

problem. The introduction suggests only one perspective in relation to the problem.

Since the beginning of industrialization, factories and citizens have used the Great Lakes as

dumping grounds for rubbish: raw sewage, animal carcasses, excess chemicals, and

everything in between. This rubbish is killing fish. You have been appointed to helping

clean up the problem resulting from these deposits.

Level 4: The introduction includes a real-life problem. It gives an overview of why this is a

problem or suggests how dealing with the problem could bring about positive change. The

introduction suggests more than one perspective.

Due to extensive pollution, your local beach on one of the Great Lakes has banned

swimming. Pollution also affects lake inhabitants. Fish, for example, are being found

floating, dead, in the lakes. This has not stopped fishermen who remain out on the lake

baiting, catching, and eating these contaminated fish. Talk of cleaning up the lake and

stopping factories from depositing pollutants in the lake makes many people in your town

fear that these actions will cause factories to move, and town people will lose their jobs.

Task: The products become a means for students to disseminate their findings and decisions

regarding the problem or issue. The task requires students to function at a high level of Bloom’s

taxonomy: analysis, synthesis, or evaluation.

Level 1: The task appears unrelated to the problem or the task is not one found in real life. The

task fails to call on students to disseminate findings, decisions, and reasons for those decisions.

Write a report on the fish found in the Great Lakes. In the report, include a picture of each

type of fish and write comments for each species of fish.

Sherri Cianca

245

Level 2: The task is weak in relation to the problem or weak in relation to a real-life task. The

task calls on students to disseminate information at the lowest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy:

knowledge.

You and your team will research the topic of pollution on the Great Lakes. You will record

information about the causes of pollution, record information on the animals and plants that

have been affected by pollution, and list possible ways to stop lake pollution. You will gather

pictures and replicas of flora and fauna that have become extinct and endangered due to lake

pollution. You will put your information together on a poster to share with your class.

Level 3: The task is related to the problem and is a real-life task that promotes positive change.

The task calls on students to function at the comprehension and/or application level of Bloom’s

taxonomy.

Your job is to research and discuss the causes and effects of pollution on the survival of

Great Lakes flora and fauna. Record this information on posters. When presented to the

class, give examples to validate causes and effects. Predict what will happen to the Great

Lakes in a year, five years, and ten years if measures are not taken to prevent further

pollution. Include suggestions on how to deal with the problem.

Level 4: The task is related to the problem and is a real-live task that promotes positive change.

The task calls on students to function at the analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation level of

Bloom’s taxonomy.

The Great Lakes Environmental and Public Works Committee commissioned your team to

deal with the problem of pollution on the Great Lakes. The team will research the issue and

possible solutions to the problem. The team, made up of representatives from factories and

other interest groups, will meet to discuss and then formulate a plan that is acceptable to all

Sherri Cianca

246

parties. The plan will include strategies for cleaning up pollution and stopping further

dumping of pollutants into the lakes. The plan must consider the needs factories located on

the Great Lakes and factory employees. Create a poster presentation and write a newspaper

article that gives particulars of the problem and presents the plan for dealing with all issues.

Process: Organizational framework and activities are from various perspectives (roles) and are

designed to transform students’ thinking from basic knowledge to new meaning through high-

level thinking.

Level 1: . . . No specific roles, or roles are unrelated and/or irrelevant to the problem.

Each person in the group will learn about one of the Great Lakes. (no specific roles)

Reporter—you will research and report what the group discovers.

Journalist—you will write an article on pollution in the Great Lakes.

Weather Planner—you will determine what to wear when visiting the Great Lakes.

Level 2: . . . Roles assume only one problem-related perspective.

Scientist—research Great Lakes flora and fauna and the affects of lake pollution on survival.

Biologist: learns about how pollution harms animals in and around the Great Lakes

Research Scientist: study pollution and the damage it does to living things.

Marine Biologist: report on endangered and extinct species of marine life in the Great Lakes

and the part lake pollution plays in endangerment and extinction.

Level 3: . . . Roles assume two problem-related perspectives.

Scientist—(same as above)

Factory Representative—determine types of factories found on the Great Lakes, number of

people employed by these factories, and why factories need to put chemicals into the

lakes.

Sherri Cianca

247

Marine Biologist: report on endangered and extinct species of marine life in the Great Lakes

and the part lake pollution plays in endangerment and extinction.

Level 4: . . . Roles assume at least three problem-related perspectives. Examples:

Scientist—(see above)

Factory Representative—(see above)

Lawyer—study laws protecting factory owners, homeowners, fishermen, and others whose

livelihood and wellbeing are affected by pollution on the Great Lakes.

Environmentalist—study the clean up and prevention of lake pollution.

Medical Health Officer—study lake pollution and its effect on public health.

Farmer—study farmers’ need for phosphorus fertilizer and the result to crops if phosphorus

fertilizers are not used. (Farm run-off pollutes the Great Lakes.)