Consuming and Constructing Knowledge THR

1
5
CONSUMING AND
7
CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE
9
THROUGH WEBQUESTS
11
Hope J. Hartman
13
15 ABSTRACT
17 Undergraduate and graduate teacher education students in a culturally
diverse, urban university consume and construct knowledge as they
19 engage in a Piaget WebQuest and subsequently construct their own Indi-
vidual WebQuests. The activities involved in these assignments are
21 underpinned by a combination of complementary theoretical frame-
works: Cognitive Constructivism, Social Constructivism, Information
23 Processing, and Situated Learning. The chapter describes how all of
these theoretical frameworks are applied in the WebQuests. It includes
25 detailed descriptions of how students engage in and create their own
WebQuests. Descriptions include details of how scaffolding is used to
27 support students in their work. Scaffolding that occurs during the Piaget
WebQuest process sets the stage for creation of Individual WebQuests,
29 while additional scaffolding is provided during the Individual WebQuest
creation process. This chapter also emphasizes teaching metacognition
31 in the design and revision of WebQuest requirements and students’
33
Increasing Student Engagement and Retention using Online Learning Activities:
35 Wikis, Blogs and Webquests
Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6A, 257 291
Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
37 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2044-9968/doi:10.1108/S2044-9968(2012)000006A012
39 257
258 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 metacognition as they engage in the Piaget WebQuest and create their

own Individual WebQuests. The processes of engaging in and creating
3 WebQuests are described and examples of students’ WebQuest authentic
products shared with a community of learners are provided. Products
5 include Piaget WebQuest-based quizzes, lesson analyses, handouts, and
instructional activity designs. They also include individual WebQuests in
7 a variety of academic subjects. Sharing authentic products in a commu-
nity of practice reflects situated learning theory. Consuming and con-
9 structing knowledge through WebQuests involves a complex synthesis of
current theories of learning and instruction which facilitates meaningful
11 learning and transfer. AU:7
13
This chapter describes the use of WebQuests for knowledge consumption
15 and construction by preservice and inservice teacher education students in
a culturally diverse urban university in New York City. Two types of Web-
17 Quest experiences are described: engaging in an existing WebQuest and
creating a new WebQuest. Major theories underlying this use of Web-
19 Quests for knowledge consumption and construction are: cognitive con-
structivism, social constructivism, situated learning, and information
21 processing.
23
WHAT IS A WEBQUEST?
25
A WebQuest is a learning activity that involves inquiry-oriented activities
27
through which students learn mostly or entirely by interacting with
resources on the Internet (Dodge, 1997). Dodge, creator of WebQuests,
29
identifies two levels: short-term, which lasts one to three class periods, and
long-term, which lasts a week to a month. Short-term WebQuest goals are
31
acquiring and integrating a substantial amount of material. Long-term
WebQuest goals involve deeply analyzing information and transforming it
33
by creating a product which reflects learners’ understanding.
Dodge’s critical attributes of a WebQuest are embodied in the Zunal
35
WebQuest maker used in this chapter, which includes:
37 1. Introduction sets the stage, activates prior knowledge, and provides
background information;
39 2. Task is interesting and achievable; usually requiring group and indi-
vidual activities
Consuming and Constructing Knowledge through Web Quests 259
1 3. Process steps and information resources needed for completing the

task and guiding organization of the acquired information
3 4. Evaluation a rubric specifying grading criteria for the required tasks
5. Conclusion reminds and helps learners reflect on what they learned
5 and encourages them to extend their learning.
March (2002 2006), a student of Dodge’s, characterizes WebQuests as
7
a two-stage process: building and applying expertise. March’s Best Web-
Quests website includes characteristics of and links to exemplary Web-
9
Quests. They are authentic activities which motivate student inquiry and
inspire students to see rich thematic relationships, make a contribution to
11
the world of learning, and reflect on their own metacognitive processes.
The pedagogical complexity of effective WebQuests is revealed in
13
March’s list of strategies and theories they prompt: motivation, question-
ing, constructivism, differentiated learning, situated learning, thematic
15
instruction, authentic assessment, overt metacognition, and learner-cen-
tered psychological principles. This chapter focuses primarily on construc-
17
tivism, situated learning, and metacognition, although most of the others
are included. Metacognition is considered part of information processing
19
theory, especially Sternberg’s (1985) Triarchic Theory of Intelligence and
the BACEIS Model of Improving Thinking (Hartman & Sternberg, 1993).
21
23
RESEARCH ON WEBQUESTS
25
Zheng, Stucky, McAlack, Menchana, and Stoddart (2005) note that most
27 writing about WebQuests focuses on K-12 settings rather than higher edu-
cation. Consequently, their research is an important contribution to exam-
29 ining WebQuests in higher education. Their research, which includes
undergraduate and graduate students from four higher education institu-
31 tions, uses a questionnaire addressing four research-based factors impor-
tant to learning through WebQuests: critical thinking, knowledge
33 application, social skills, and scaffolded learning.
One issue is identifying factors critical to WebQuest learning, as per-
35 ceived by learners. Three factors emerged: constructivist problem solving,
social interaction, and scaffolded learning, thereby reflecting a somewhat
37 different perspective from the previous literature.
Another issue investigated is gender differences in perceptions of Web-
39 Quest learning. Males and females differed in their perceptions of con-
structivist problem solving. Constructivist problem solving is multifaceted,
260 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 with nine components including: looking at problems from multiple per-

spectives, generating alternative solutions to problems, using information
3 effectively to solve problems, and transferring knowledge from one prob-
lem solving situation to another. The difference involved two questionnaire
5 items: one on multiple approaches to solving problems and the other on
multiple solutions to problems, however they did not report how males
7 and females differed on these items. There were no gender differences on
either of the other two factors, social interaction and scaffolded learning.
9 Chapter 11 in this collection addresses WebQuests in Second-Language
Preservice Teacher Education, contributing to the scant literature on Web-
11 Quests in higher education. Manning and Carpenter (2008) use a Web-
Quest to prepare preservice teachers for using assistive technologies for
13 students with disabilities. Wang and Hannafin (2008) compare the use of
fixed versus dynamic scaffolds to support WebQuest design by preservice
15 teachers. Z. Unal and Unal (2010) found that preservice and inservice tea-
chers generally have positive attitudes about WebQuests being integrated
17 into their courses enhancing teaching and learning. This chapter contri-
butes to the emerging literature on WebQuests in preservice and inservice
19 teacher education.
21
23 CONSUMING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE
25 Two key psychological processes identified in the title of this chapter

consuming and constructing knowledge are fundamental components of
27 WebQuest experiences. Construction of knowledge basically involves indi-
viduals generating their own understanding of information through mean-
29 ingful interactions with the environment. It will be addressed further in the
forthcoming discussion of the theories underlying WebQuest activities
31 reported in this chapter.
Consumption of knowledge, as consistent with information processing
33 theories, emphasizes acquiring and reflecting on information from
resources accessed by the learner. This involves various information pro-
35 cesses, including: selecting resources, attending to, encoding and compre-
hending information, connecting new material to prior knowledge,
37 analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating information, storing information in
long-term memory, and a variety of metacognitive processes.
39 Consuming knowledge through these acquisition processes enables stu-
dents to transfer what they learn to new situations. Transfer can be viewed
1 as a metacognitive or information processing activity, as a constructivist

activity, and as a form of situated learning. This chapter focuses on two
3 transfer activities: constructing an authentic educational product based on
what students learned from engaging in the Piaget WebQuest, and con-
5 structing their own WebQuests for teaching their own students. The first
transfer activity emphasizes applying what students learn about the content
7 (Piaget’s theory and its educational implications), while the second empha-
sizes applying what they learn about WebQuests. Both transfer activities
9 involve students contributing authentic products to a community of prac-
tice, in this case in the domain of teaching, and reflect situated learning
11 and social constructivist theories.
13
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
15
Constructivism
17
Constructivism is derived from cognitive developmental theories, such as
19 Dewey (1933), Bruner (1960), and Piaget (1971a, 1973), who emphasize
cognitive constructivism, and Vygotsky (1978) who emphasizes social con-
21 structivism. Piaget and Bruner suggest there are qualitatively different
stages of cognitive development which proceed from physical to concrete
23 to abstract thinking. This perspective emphasizes similarities of people at
the same stage and differences from stage to stage. Children are viewed as
25 thinking differently than adults. Like all cognitive theories, constructivism
emphasizes the active role of the learner in building understanding and
27 making sense of information. It includes: developing one’s own view of the
world, building concepts, relationships between concepts, using one’s own
29 experience and prior knowledge, representing knowledge in multiple
modalities, implementing a spiral curriculum (Bruner, 1960), inquiry, dis-
31 covery, and cooperative learning.
Piaget used constructivism to explain how people come to know about
33 their world. He viewed the human mind as a dynamic set of cognitive
structures that help us make sense of what we perceive. These structures
35 grow in intellectual complexity as we mature and interact with the world
and as we gain experience. According to Brooks & Brooks (1993) “… con-
37 structivist teachers seek to ask one big question, give students time to think
about it, and lead them to resources to answer it.” (p. 39). Piaget viewed
39 children as intrinsically motivated to interact with the environment and to
resolve conflicts.
262 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 Vygotsky (1978) emphasized connections between people and the socio-

cultural context in which they act and interact in shared experiences
3 (Crawford, 1996). He claimed that learning to relate knowledge and skills
to new problems occurs through the guidance of a “more knowledgeable
5 other,” hence the concept of social constructivism. He states: “Every func-
tion in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social
7 level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsycho-
logical) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (p. 57). According
9 to Vygotsky, humans use cultural tools, such as speech and writing, to
mediate their social environments. Initially children develop these tools to
11 serve social functions, ways to communicate needs. Then these tools are
internalized, leading to higher level thinking. He viewed motivation as a
13 function of both curiosity and the child’s activity (intrinsic) and the influ-
ence of adults passing on cultural tools (extrinsic).
15 Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of Cognitive and Social Con-
structivism. Both emphasize the active role of the learner in making sense
17
19 Table 1. Characteristics of Cognitive and Social Constructivism.

Characteristic Cognitive Constructivism Social Constructivism
21 Role of heredity and They interact, but biology They interact, but social
environment of cognitive structures is interactions are primary.
23 primary.
Relationship between Development precedes Learning precedes development
25 development and learning learning
Nature of development Occurs in stages Occurs within the Zone of
Proximal Development
27 How to view student’s level Stage, stage mixture Area between independent
of development performance and assisted
29 performance
Key mechanism of Equilibration Scaffolding within the Zone
intellectual development of Proximal Development
31 Educational implication Induce cognitive Provide temporary support
of key mechanism reorganization to create until higher level is reached
33 higher level thinking
Recommended methods Discovery, inquiry, learning Scaffolding, modeling,
35 of learning cycle, stimulate conflict, apprenticeship, groups
groups
Actively constructing Emphasis on physical Emphasis on social interactions
37 knowledge by interacting environment but also
with the environment includes social
39 environment
Motivation Intrinsic Intrinsic and extrinsic
1 of the world and constructing knowledge, and the importance of challeng-

ing students so that they reach new and higher levels of thinking, but they
3 differ in explaining how this occurs.
Despite its popularity in education today, constructivism is not a pana-
5 cea for learning. As with all instructional approaches, there are advantages
and disadvantages. One common criticism of constructivism is that it sub-
7 ordinates the curriculum to students’ interests. But constructivists believe
this misses the point because posing questions of emerging relevance to
9 students is a guiding principle of constructivist pedagogy. Also, student
interest/relevance can be sparked by the teacher; it does not have to be a
11 pre-existing condition. Intrinsic motivation can be personal or situational.
Another common criticism of constructivism is that constructivist appro-
13 aches are more time consuming than traditional, lecture-type approaches,
so less content is covered. But constructivists argue that “less is more”; stu-
15 dents are better able to understand, retain, and apply what they learn from
constructivist approaches, so more is learned in the long run.
17
19 Situated Learning
21 Situated learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Collins, Brown, &
Newman, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), another major theory guiding this
23 work, emphasizes the importance of the context and culture in which learn-
ing activities take place. Situated learning involves deliberate use of the
25 social and physical environment, such as in cognitive apprenticeships, and
participation in a community of practice. Lave and Wenger define a com-
27 munity of practice as a group of people sharing an interest in something
they do and learning how to do it better through their social interactions.
29 Thus it shares some of the features of social constructivism. Communities
of practice require three components: a content domain (e.g., education), a
31 community (e.g., a classroom), and practitioners (e.g., teachers).
33
Information Processing
35
My work as a professor is highly metacognitive and heavily influenced
37 by information processing theory. I regularly model and emphasize the
need for teachers to think about their own thinking processes and pro-
39 ducts (Hartman, 2009, 2001a) and therefore explicitly describe all the
changes I have made and plan to make in my Piaget WebQuest. I also
264 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 require students to think metacognitively, reflecting on their own thinking,

learning, and performance, and encourage them to systematically think
3 about themselves as independent, self-directed learners (Hartman, 2001b,
2009; Hartman & Sternberg, 1993).
5 Executive management metacognition, which involves planning, moni-
toring, evaluating, and revising one’s thinking processes and products, is a
7 fundamental dimension of reflective practice emphasized in the WebQuests
described in this chapter. Strategic knowledge metacognition, also empha-
9 sized here, is essential for realizing what knowledge and skills one has, and
when, why, and how to use them. Strategic knowledge is essential for both
11 engaging in and creating WebQuests, which also require critical thinking
skills of analyzing and evaluating resources and instructional activities.
13
15 A Synthesis of Perspectives
17 As a professor, I combine these theories and encourage my students to

develop their own eclectic teaching repertoire rather than become ideolo-
19 gues in a particular approach. I believe that teachers require varied
approaches to meet the needs of diverse learners and to meet the needs of
21 individual learners for different topics, tasks, and instructional contexts.
While cognitive constructivist theory underlies the experience of learners
23 as they individually engage in the Piaget WebQuest, constructing knowl-
edge from a cognitive perspective is also involved when these preservice
25 and inservice teacher create their own Individual WebQuests on a topic
they choose for their current or future students.
27 Social constructivist theory underlies cooperatively applying what is
learned from the Piaget WebQuest to the creation of an authentic product.
29 The product itself is also consistent with social constructivist theory, view-
ing it as a cultural artifact. Cultural artifacts are tools, objects, ideas, or
31 concepts that connect individuals to society and society to individuals
(Vygotsky, 1978). Social constructivism also underlies the scaffolding pro-
33 cess of students first engaging in a collaborative, structured WebQuest
experience before creating their own Individual WebQuest.
35 Situated learning is involved in the Piaget and Individual WebQuest
activities described as students use the physical and social context of their
37 WebQuest experiences as college students to co-construct knowledge that
they can use in real-world settings as teachers in their own classrooms with
39 their own students. Brown et al. (1989) emphasize that learning is situated
in and partially a product of the activity of the learner in the context in
1 which learning occurs. In this case, teacher education students participate

in authentic activities that are implemented regularly by members of the
3 educational community. There is extensive social interaction among the
students who participate in them as current or prospective teachers, as
5 members of a community of practice in our teacher-education classroom.
This situation is an authentic culture and context for engaging in and cre-
7 ating WebQuests. The activities involve accessing and consuming a variety
of teaching-related resources and constructing authentic products the
9 types of teaching materials regularly developed and used in educational
situations.
11
13
PIAGET WEBQUEST
15
All my graduate and undergraduate teacher-education students consume
and construct knowledge by engaging in a WebQuest designed to teach
17
them about Piaget’s Theory of Intellectual Development and its educa-
tional implications. “Discovering and Uncovering Piaget,” (Hartman,
19
2009 2012) requires students to construct knowledge as they individually
reflect on the resources they have consumed, and collaboratively create
21
educational products by applying what they learned from this WebQuest
about Piaget’s theory and its educational implications.
23
The Piaget WebQuest involves all three factors identified by Zheng et. al.
(2005): constructivist problem solving, social interaction, and scaffolding
25
learning. WebQuests that require students to cooperate with other students
to perform tasks involve Johnson and Johnson’s concepts of positive inter-
27
dependence, social skills, and group accountability (Dodge, 2001). Creating
teaching-related products based on Piaget requires immersion in the
29
content in an authentic context that enhances students’ deep understanding
of the theory and its educational implications. Individual consumption
31
of knowledge enables transfer of what is learned to the collaborative con-
struction of products which are shared in their community of practice.
33
35
Why Was It Developed?
37
I created the Piaget WebQuest because:
39 1. Students seem to dislike learning about psychological theories through
traditional teaching methods. I thought that discovery (or inquiry)
266 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 learning one of the educational implications of Piaget’s theory

through the use of the Internet might be a more authentic and interest-
3 ing pedagogy, so a WebQuest seemed to be ideal. In discovery learning,
students substantially acquire information on their own, rather than
5 being told the information. As recommended by Mayer (2004), the Pia-
get WebQuest is best characterized as guided discovery, because the
7 information resources are provided and constrained by their professor,
in contrast with pure discovery learning, in which students find their
9 own resources. Mayer’s review of research shows that guided discovery
is more effective in promoting learning and transfer than is pure discov-
11 ery. Herman and Gomez (2009) concur that guidance is crucial for lear-
ners, and argue that it is important for teachers, partially because of the
13 motivational impact of guided constructivist approaches on learners.
2. I wanted my teacher education students to be experienced with and able
15 to use existing WebQuests so they can capitalize on students’ intrinsic
interest in technology and recent educational trends and international
17 standards to integrate technology into instruction in virtually all subjects
and grades. The goal here is not to use technology just for its own sake,
19 but rather to use it effectively to supplement and enhance teaching
and learning. There are numerous excellent WebQuests they can freely
21 and easily access, and a range of resources for evaluating their quality.
One especially comprehensive set of resources is Kathy Schrock’s
23 (1995 2012) Guide for Educators, which has a section in Teacher Helpers
titled “Web Quest in Our Future: The Teacher’s Role in Cyberspace.”
25 3. I wanted to scaffold my students’ abilities to create their own Web-
Quests, and engaging in a WebQuest was part of the scaffolding pro-
27 cess. Scaffolding was further enhanced by my modeling how to modify
my WebQuest based on experiences implementing it and using students’
29 feedback. Through modeling they gain insight into how they might
teach metacognitively, using feedback from their experiences and their
31 students to modify their individually created WebQuests, both during
its creation and after its publication.
33
35 How Does It Work?
37 A carefully sequenced set of procedures guides students through their Pia-

get WebQuest experiences. They are introduced to the concept and assign-
39 ment the first day of the semester, reviewing the syllabus. This WebQuest,
based on a Zunal template, includes: Title, Introduction, Task, Process,
1 Evaluation, Conclusion, Teacher Page, and Author page. During the first
class students get a brief overview of each of these components, the specific
3 assignments, and their due dates. Following is a brief description of the
main components of the Piaget WebQuest.
5
Introduction
7 It includes a photograph of Piaget with my mentor, Howard Gruber and
Voneche (1995) from their book “The Essential Piaget,” an interpretive
9 reference and guide to understanding Piaget and his writings. Gruber
worked with Piaget at the International Center for Genetic Epistemology
11 at the University of Geneva in Switzerland periodically from the 1950s
until Piaget’s death in 1980. From 1983 1988 Gruber held the Piaget
13 Chair at the University of Geneva.
The Introduction activates students’ prior knowledge about Piaget, ori-
15 ents them to the WebQuest’s objectives, and poses questions for students
to consider as they engage in it. Questions include:
17
What are Piaget’s main contributions to understanding how students
think and learn?
19
What are Piaget’s stages and the characteristics of his stage theory?
How does Piaget view the roles of biology and experience in cognitive/
21
intellectual development?
How does Piaget explain the mechanisms of cognitive/intellectual
23
development?
Why and how is Cognitive Constructivism used in teaching?
25
What are common misconceptions about Piaget’s theory?
27 Questions are used throughout the WebQuest to help students select
and consume resources according to their individual needs and interests,
29 enabling them to construct their own understanding of Piaget’s theory and
its educational implications so they can apply a deep understanding of
31 what they learn to their own teaching. Questioning also reflects Piagetian
Cognitive Constructivism because it activates students’ prior knowledge
33 and provokes active, meaningful learning. It also reflects an Information
Processing approach by stimulating students’ reasoning, critical thinking,
35 and metacognition.
37 Task
It specifies the Piaget WebQuest requirements, some of which are group
39 and some are individual. The group tasks have varied during the three
years I’ve been requiring this WebQuest, but always involve creating an
268 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 authentic educational product based on what students learn from it and

making a class presentation on their product. The products students have
3 created include: (1) quiz, (2) analysis of lessons, (3) handout, and (4) design
of an instructional activity.
5 An individual task that evolved during this period requires writing a
“Documentation Journal” or “Resource Report,” which is a response to
7 the websites and documents students have used. This requirement forces
students to select and examine a variety of resources to acquire information
9 about Piaget’s theory and its educational implications. Thus it involves the
consumption of knowledge. It also forces them to comment on whether
11 and how they could use each resource as teachers, thereby constructing
meaning of each one within an authentic context. Both versions of this task
13 require students to be metacognitive, reflecting on the value and their
potential applications of information from the WebQuest materials.
15 Another task, evaluating WebQuest performance, shifted from a group
task in which one group evaluated another group’s product and presenta-
17 tion (Table 2), to a group task evaluating their own group’s collaboration.
Then it switched to an individual task evaluating students’ own perfor-
19 mance (Table 3) collaborating on the product creation and class presenta-
tion. The first version of this task emphasized critical thinking, as students
21 critiqued another group’s performance, whereas second and third versions
require metacognitive self-assessment.
23
Process
25
It guides students through the required tasks by providing various
resources for learning about Piaget’s theory and its educational implica-
27
tions. Resources include:
29 attached documents, for example, Piaget’s (1972) classic article, “Intel-
lectual Evolution from Adolescence to Adulthood,” Kuhn’s (2008) “For-
31 mal Operations from a Twenty-First Century Perspective,” and my
papers on Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories and Cognitive and Social
33 Constructivism;
links to documents, for example, Piaget’s (1971b) book “To Understand
35 is to Invent,” and an article comparing several Learning Cycle appro-
aches to lesson design;
37 links to videos, for example, YouTube Powerful Teaching and Learn-
ing: High School Math, and
39 links to multimedia sites, for example, PBS’s 2004 “Concept to
Classroom.”
1
Table 2. Peer Evaluation Example.
3 Evaluation Component Evaluation Details
Goals and objectives The group under evaluation gave a very strong presentation
5 thoroughly planned, developed, and executed. We especially
liked the incorporation of other subject areas (American
7 history, European colonialism) and current events into what
essentially was an English lesson. In addition, we thought
that activities chosen did a thorough job establishing helpful
9 connections between the newly introduced concepts and the
daily lives of students in class. The goals and objectives were
11 not only clear but also realistic. By the end of the lesson, the
students were expected to be able to analyze and respond to
literary elements, comprehend and critique myths and
13 narratives, and better understand ways of life and beliefs of
Native American people prior to European colonialism.
15 Teaching methods and Teaching methods and learning activities were very
learning activities appropriate and applicable to helping students meet the
17 goals/objectives of the lesson. We also enjoyed the way the
group planned the teaching methods section. Beginning the
lesson with the teacher introducing the topic in form of a
19 question and having the students write their thoughts in a
short free-response essay was an effective way to motivate
21 students to think about the topic from the very start of the
class. It was also very thoughtful that the group made sure
to include a homework assignment as part of their teaching
23 methods. We understand how having students write a short
essay response on statements made by current political
25 figures would help them link the concepts learned in class to
current events.
27 Connections to Piaget Connections to Piaget’s principles were clear and fully
incorporated throughout the lesson plan. The lesson touched
upon many of Piaget’s important ideas including addressing
29 preconceptions, creating disequilibrium, using meaningful
material (in the form of current events), and using a free-
31 write to motivate students. The PowerPoint was not only
effective in capturing the viewers’ attention but was also a
great visual aid during the presentation.
33
35
Students are explicitly restricted to using the resources provided through
37 this WebQuest and are not permitted to use other resources to learn about
Piaget without my consent, because of considerable misinformation about
39 his theory. I want to guide their discovery process to ensure quality control
over what they learn.
270 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1
Table 3. Self-Evaluation Example.
Cooperation with your group, My partner and I only met twice for about an hour
5 including timely discussion and each time. The first time we discussed which subject
planning for the product and area and lesson we would do. The second time we
7 presentation discussed how we would teach and how our activity
would be presented. I felt like we cooperated well,
but I guess I may have been too relaxed about the
9 project or maybe that she had been overwhelmed.
She kept mentioning that this was a big part of our
11 final grade and that it is important for us to come
up with a unique design to “wow” the class. She
kept me focused and motivated. We worked really
13 well together to create our product.
Your individual contributions to the Chelsea would ask me what I think we should do or
15 design of the instructional activity how I think we should do something just to get an
and its classroom implementation: idea of how I viewed things. So I told her that we
17 should base our activity on either Drama or
English because that is what we both study. She
said a few people were using English, so we
19 decided on Drama. She mentioned improvisation,
which was exactly what I was thinking because it
21 highlights Piaget’s theory by placing an actor into
a situation, forcing him to adapt and used
different pre-established tactics to reach his/her
23 objective. I thought of the scenario that we used
in class a man or woman trying to get drugs
25 from a drug dealer for free. She decided that one
of us would teach while one acts, then vice versa.
27 I thought it would be cool to show a brief video AU:5
about improvisation to the class, so we typed in
“improv 101,” and watched the first video that
29 came up and it was perfect. I wanted to see what
everyone already knew about improvisation, so I
31 thought it would be good to pose questions to the
class just to see what they were thinking and
already knew. We thought that it would be
33 important to elaborate on the elements associated
with improvisation (i.e., objective, who are you,
35 where are you, relationship to other character(s),
obstacles, etc.) and we would take turns explaining
37 each one. I also thought it would be good to have
a little bit of a reflection at the end of our session
(like the L in KWL: What I know, what I want to
39 know, what I learned).
1
Table 3. (Continued)
How much you learned from the I learned how Piaget viewed cognitive development
5 resources you chose and the logic behind it, the different stages, and the
criteria of each by watching the YouTube videos.
7 I didn’t get a sense of how I could apply this
information in the classroom until I read one
document by Dr. Hartman called “Piaget and
9 Constructivism.” This really made everything
clear to me Piaget’s theory and its educational
11 implications and how students think and learn
best, their educational environment, social
interaction, and promotion of abstract thinking.
13 Action plan of how you might I would do more research apart from the given
improve your performance on a resources. I would make more time in my schedule
15 similar assignment in the future. to really sit down and think of all the educational
implications and how I would personally apply
17 them in my classroom. I would develop an entire
method of teaching based on the theory and
attempt to teach as practice, then modify and
19 adjust to have a better product. I would also want
to think of ways in which my activity could be
21 more fun and engaging to students based on their
personal interests.
23
25 Evaluation
It provides an assessment rubric with criteria for each WebQuest require-
27 ment. Requirements are: meeting assigned due dates, documentation jour-
nal/resource report, product and presentation, and project evaluation. The
29 rubric has four score categories ranging from Excellent to Poor. Students
are repeatedly reminded to use these criteria to monitor their own perfor-
31 mance as they engage in WebQuest tasks. The final task, the project self-
evaluation, concludes with an Action Plan, where they explain what they
33 might do differently on a similar assignment in the future. This step takes
the executive management function of students’ metacognition full circle,
35 closing the loop so that evaluation leads to planning.
37 Conclusion
It poses questions requiring students to reflect on what they learned from
39 engaging in the WebQuest. Questions include, “How has your knowledge
of Piaget’s ideas and Cognitive Constructivism changed?” “How did you
272 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 benefit from seeing the instructional activities implemented from your

peers?” “What else would you like to know about Piaget’s theory and its
3 educational implications?” “How could you improve your performance on
a similar assignment in the future?” The primary goals of the Conclusion
5 are to help students recognize and appreciate what they have learned about
Piaget’s theory and its educational implications and to stimulate continued
7 learning about it.
9
Student PWQ Products for Consuming and Constructing
11 Knowledge through WebQuests
13 As previously mentioned, after individually consuming selected resources,

students collaboratively construct the following authentic educational pro-
15 ducts and present them in our classroom community of practice: (1) quiz,
(2) analysis of lessons, (3) handout, and (4) instructional activity.
17
Quiz
19 The option for creating a quiz on the Piaget WebQuest was provided
because creating quizzes is an authentic instructional task. This option
21 evolved over time based on experience. Initially students were required to
create a minimum of 10 questions and provide an answer key. Details
23 regarding the 10 15-minute class presentation were not prescribed. The
next semester students were required to administer at least part of the quiz
25 during their class presentation. In the third semester, the types of questions
required were constrained in two ways. AU:1
27 First, no more than three questions were allowed to focus on Piaget’s
stages of intellectual development. The other seven questions were to focus
29 on the characteristics of the stage theory and/or the theory’s educational
implications. This change was instituted because students asked too many
31 questions on the stages, and did not pay enough attention to the character-
istics of the stage theory or its educational implications.
33 Second, at least seven questions had to require answers that involved
reasoning. This change was instituted because students asked too many
35 multiple choice, true/false, or matching questions, which could be based
on rote memorization rather than deep understanding of the material.
37 This change also made the quiz more consistent with the educational
implications of Piaget’s theory by emphasizing the reasoning process
39 not just the answer. See Table 4 for sample questions, answers, and
explanations.
1
Table 4. Sample PWQ Quiz Items.
3 Question Answer and Explanation
Roma, a right-handed child shows up to play on (c) Accommodation. Roma has a

5 a new baseball team. The problem is that he is structure for playing baseball. He is
without a mitt and the only mitts available for making a modification of his cognitive
7 his use are those intended for left-handed structures and not just an expansion
children. Roma uses it and adjusts the way he of them, as he would if this were
catches and throws the ball. The adjustment assimilation.
9 Roma makes in his playing is an example
of_______?
11 (a) Perseveration
(b) Assimilation
13 (c) Accommodation
(d) Conservation
You are observing a social studies teacher Anything that allows students to activate
15 present a lesson on the branches of their prior knowledge and apply the
government. The teacher lists the three information to their lives would be
17 branches and for each presents a bullet point. useful. For example, the teacher could
What is one specific way this lesson could be ask students whether they know what
modified to make it closer to a constructivist the president’s job is, or ask how a
19
classroom environment? specific law that they might care about
gets passed. Then students will be
21 much more engaged and the new
knowledge will have more meaning for
23 them.
In a middle school biology class, you have set Students are demonstrating
up a microscope with pond water under it. accommodation. The new information
25 Your students express surprise when they see they are learning does not exactly fit
that there are animals living in the water, as into their existing scheme, so they
27 they previously only associated animals with have to modify it to accommodate the
things they could readily see around them. In new knowledge.
this example, are students demonstrating
29
assimilation or accommodation? Explain your
answer.
31 Diane and Darnell are celebrating their (b) Pre-operational: Diane and Darnell
birthdays together. Their mother decides to have learned to use language and have
33 bake each any shaped cake they describe to no conservation of mass; therefore,
her. Although both cakes are each made from they are at the pre-operational stage.
one box of cake mix, the kids are absolutely
35 sure Darnell’s castle shaped cake contains
more cake than Diane’s Barbie cake because it
37 is taller. Based on the thought process of
Diane and Darnell, which stage would
accurately describe their level of cognitive
39
development and why?
274 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 The option for creating quizzes was eliminated in the fourth semester.
Students’ feedback suggested that although creating a quiz, especially one
3 requiring students to engage in reasoning, is an important teaching skill, it
is not nearly as valuable as tasks directly related to constructivist lessons.
5 Thus, this task engendered a sequence of metacognitive reflections that
ultimately ended in me eliminating it as an option.
7
Lesson Analysis
9 This option was based on the assumption that an authentic need for tea-
chers is the ability to examine a lesson and evaluate whether, the extent to
11 which, and how it incorporates constructivist design principles. Students
choosing this option were required to analyze two lessons to identify and
13 assess their consistency with Piaget’s theory, including constructivism and
other educational implications. Lesson Analysis focused on four compo-
15 nents: Goals/Objectives, Materials, Teaching Methods and Learning Activ-
ities, and Connections to Piaget’s Theory and its Educational Implications.
17 The WebQuest provided access to a variety of resources on Constructivism
to help students analyze lessons using a Constructivist lens.
19 Students could choose lessons to analyze from two websites. One
was PBS’s 2004 “Concept to Classroom.” The first menu button, “Expla-
21 nation,” gives background information on Constructivism, including what
it is, how it differs from traditional approaches to teaching and learning,
23 and how to apply it in the classroom. The “Demonstration” menu button
has resources including “Constructivism in Action,” with links to:
25
“In Classrooms,” which includes interviews with teachers, video clips,
27 and transcripts of parts of constructivist lessons;
“In Schools and Projects,” which includes links to several schools using
29 constructivist approaches;
“At the Discover Lab,” a program from the State University of New
31 York at StonyBrook, which describes constructivist activities in mathe-
matics, science, and technology;
33 “What Do Constructivist Lesson Plans Look Like?” which includes
detailed lesson plans demonstrating expert, constructivist teaching and
35 learning.
37 The other website, InTime (1999 2001), from the University of

Northern Iowa, has a comprehensive set of lesson plans in a variety of
39 subjects and grade levels. Each lesson is based on a sophisticated, stu-
dent-centered, technology-enhanced pedagogical model, “Technology as
1 Facilitator of Quality Education Model” (see Fig. 1). Although this web-
site does not identify itself as based on constructivism, virtually all the
3 lessons, and the website itself, are quite consistent with constructivist
design principles.
5 One constructivist design principle is apparent from Fig. 1, the graphic
organizer representing the pedagogical model: it has links to definitions
7 and explanations of its components. Individuals can explore, clarify, and
deepen their knowledge and understanding as desired, thereby enabling
9 them to construct their own knowledge about the model using their meta-
cognition to self-regulate their learning.
11 Another InTime (1999 2001) constructivist design principle is reflected
in the Probing Questions, which are pre-video and post-video viewing
13 questions that accompany each video clip of each lesson on the website.
These are organized by components of the pedagogical model: Learning,
15 Information Processing, Tenets of Democracy, Content Standards, Tech-
nology, Teacher Knowledge, and Teacher Behavior. The videos for each
17 lesson, and corresponding probing questions, also include an interview
with the teacher and an activity overview.
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Fig. 1. Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education.
.
276 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 Table 5 shows an example of the Probing Questions for the Learning

component of a science lesson. Table 6 shows the Probing Questions for
3 the Learning component of a social studies lesson.
Few groups selected the Lesson Analysis option. Table 7 shows a Les-
5 son Analysis of the science lesson by one group of undergraduates, while
Table 8 displays a social studies lesson analysis by a group of graduate stu-
7 dents. Although the lessons are not directly comparable, these examples
show some striking differences in the depth of the lesson analyses. Surpris-
9 ingly, the undergraduates provided more detailed information about the
Teaching Methods and Learning Activities than the graduate students, and
11 the undergraduates made substantially more connections between the les-
son they analyzed and Piaget’s theory than did the graduate students.
13 However, both groups showed successful consumption of knowledge about
15 Table 5. InTime Principles of Learning Video Probing Questions:

Measuring the Impact of Exercise and Body Position.
17
Type of Question Questions
19 Focus questions for 1. Read Peter Ewell’s article: “Organizing for Learning: A Point of
previewing Entry,” as it is presented in The Principles of Learning (http://
21 www.intime.uni.edu/model/learning/learn_summary.html).
According to you, what are the three most important principles?
2. In her lesson, Countryman encourages direct experience by
23 blending technology with science. How would you do this if
you were to teach the same lesson?
25 3. Review the definition of Reflection http://www.intime.uni.
edu/model/learning/refl.html) as found under the Principles
27 Learning heading in the Technology as Facilitator of Quality
Education Model. What role does reflection have in the
learning process?
29 Reflective questions for 1. Review the checklist of observable behaviors for Active
postviewing Involvement (http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/learning/acti.html)
31 as they are in the Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education
Model. How are they revealed in Countryman’s lesson?
33 2. What situations does Countryman create to encourage the
direct experience in order to enhance learning?
3. How is the reflection process demonstrated in this lesson? To
35 what extent does class discussion help in learning?
4. Refer to the Principles of Learning http://www.intime.uni.
37 edu/model/learning/learn.html) in the Technology as
Facilitator of Quality Education Model. What are the
principles Countryman applied to her lesson? Which ones do
39 you think enhance learning the best?
1
Table 6. InTime Principles of Learning Probing Questions: Introduction
to Black Studies.
3
Type of Question Questions
5 Previewing 1. What is, according to you, the importance of Reflection in the act of
learning?
7 2. Give a specific example of how Frequent Feedback could improve
student learning. What are your experiences, either as a student or a
9 teacher, with feedback?
3. Read the definition for Reflection in the Technology as Facilitator of
Quality Education Model. In your own words, describe metacognition,
11 transfer of knowledge, and analogical reasoning. Why is each important
for student learning?
13 Postviewing 1. Dial engages his students in a discussion to help them identify Patterns
and Connections in their learning. How does he encourage his students
15 to make a backward-reaching transfer of knowledge?
2. How is the process of Reflection demonstrated in Dial’s class? What
activities does he use to promote Critical Thinking?
17 3. What kind of feedback does the teacher provide his students with while
rephrasing their questions and giving them many opportunities to
19 express their ideas? How does this enhance student learning?
21
Piaget’s theory from the WebQuest resources and successful construction
23 of their own understanding of the theory and its educational implications,
applying it as a lens for examining an actual lesson. Lesson analysis was
25 not a popular choice and was subsequently eliminated as an option.
27 Handouts
One semester, students had the option to create a handout on Piaget
29 because handouts are authentic educational products. One possibility
focused on Piaget-based Tips for Teaching with an emphasis on teaching
31 adolescents. Another focused on Piaget’s Stage Theory, including charac-
teristics of both the stages themselves and the overall stage theory. Hand-
33 outs were not a very popular option either, but both types were chosen
and quite different handouts within each type were produced.
35 One teaching tips-based handout was titled “Piaget in the Classroom.”
It was two pages, back-to-back, and consisted of:
37
a photo and brief biography of Piaget;
39 “What is Piaget’s Cognitive Constructivism Concept?” with a one sen-
tence definition;
278 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1
Table 7. Lesson Analysis: Measuring the Impact of Exercise and Body
3 Position.
Lesson Analysis Undergraduate Students’ Group Analysis
5 Component
Goals/objectives Investigate different variables that can impact heart

7 rate. Collect data with specified instruments to
draw conclusions and analyze information. Use
9 new technologies to improve learning.
Teaching methods (what Introduces students to the lesson. Shows them how
the teacher does) to use the heart rate monitors and polar sticks
11 and allows each student to experiment with them.
Asks students how certain activities affect heart
13 rate. Guides an activity that causes students to
exert themselves physically to increase their heart
rate. Reviews data compiled in the projector and
15 has students compare the averages of male and
female heart rate. Assigns homework relevant to
17 the classwork, for example, graph the data.
Throughout the lesson assesses students’ learning
19 using a rubric and has a final unit assessment.
Conducts a process of reflection through a class
discussion. Questions students to involve them in
21 deep thinking.
Teacher: connections to Asking questions allows students to think
23 stages abstractly. This is an example of Formal
Operations. Questions include how and why
certain activities can affect heart rate. Using
25 instruments, for example, polar monitor and
pulse stick are an example of Concrete
27 Operations hands-on experience with
equipment. Continuously questions students to
29 make hypotheses and inferences about why
average of girls and boys heart rates differs,
involving Formal Operations.
31 Teacher: connections to Activities promote interactions with students and
educational implications teacher and allow students to learn from each
33 other and engage in meaningful learning. Using a
rubric focuses on students during the process of
learning, not just the end product. Questions
35 provide challenge and deep thinking, and
promote abstract thinking.
37 Learning activities (what Make suggestions how to measure heart rate at
the students do) rest. Take turns exercising. Use equipment to
39 perform scientific inquiry.
1
Table 7. (Continued)
3 Lesson Analysis Undergraduate Students’ Group Analysis
Component
5 Record heart rate using monitor and pulse sticks.

Calculate averages for themselves and the class.
7 Gather, graph, analyze data, formulate
hypotheses, and draw conclusions. Discuss and
assess effectiveness of technology used.
9 Students: connections to Concrete operations: Use inductive logic by
stages gathering information about heart rate; formal
11 operations: form hypotheses, make inferences,
draw conclusions.
Students: connections to Active involvement, meaningful learning, student-
13 educational implications centered activities requiring students’ decisions,
critical thinking, and responsibility. Materials
15 create disequilibrium and process of restoring
equilibrium (equilibration).
17 Materials Polar heart rate monitor, pulse sticks, metronome,
charts, and projectors
19
21 “Key Piaget Ideas” describing five of his most important beliefs;

“The Karplus Learning Cycle,” (Karplus & Lawson, 1974) summarizing
23
the three stages of instruction to help student progress from concrete to
abstract thinking (exploration, concept introduction, and application);
25 “Piaget Theoretical Terms,” a table identifying and defining seven
important concepts related to Piaget’s theory;
27 “Teaching Ideas,” a table specifying six instructional strategies, “What
does your classroom look like?” and a table contrasting Traditional and
29
Constructivism classrooms;
three recommended links “for creating lessons rich in Jean Piaget’s
31
theory.”
33 One stage-based handout was a four-page booklet containing:
35 “Who was Jean Piaget?,” which included a photo and brief biography;
“Piaget’s Stages of Development,” with a brief introduction and a
37 table summarizing the characteristics of each stage; and a diagram show-
ing movement through the four stages;
39 “Piaget’s Key Ideas,” a table describing 11 key ideas and explaining
their meaning;
280 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1
Table 8. Graduate Students Lesson Analysis: Introduction to Black
Studies.
3
Lesson Analysis Graduate Students’ Group Analysis
Component
5
Goals/objectives Become aware of and discuss racial preconceptions and stereotypes as
7 related to Black Studies
Teaching methods Three stages of the Learning Cycle Model: Exploration, Concept
Introduction/Development and Application; Explores students’
9 knowledge of previously covered material. Challenges students’
assumptions and stereotypes while promoting combinatorial
11 reflection. Lesson motivates exploration and effort through a
compelling situation. It promotes metacognition through
13 videotaping of the process.
Learning activities Creates disequilibrium through juxtaposition of alternative
understandings and/or ideas; promotes abstract cognition through
15 reasoning through hypotheticals. Relevance of the topic makes it
intrinsically motivating. Promotes self-monitoring through active
17 involvement.
Materials Teleconferencing via the Iowa Communications Network
19
21 “5 Factors Explaining Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory,” a

table summarizing his five mechanisms for progressing from one stage
23
to the next;
Piaget’s quote, “The principle goal of education is to create men who are
25
capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other genera-
tions have done men who are creative, inventive and discoverers.”
27
This option was eliminated after one semester because the relative
29 emphasis was disproportionately on telling about Piaget and the implica-
tions of his theory, thus consistent with traditional, passive forms of
31 instruction. This outcome seemed hypocritical. I wanted students to create
an authentic educational product consistent with the theory to reflect their
33 constructed understanding of how to apply it, thereby resulting in a more
meaningful, situated learning experience and a contribution to their com-
35 munity of practice.
37 Instructional Activity Design

Students choosing this option collaboratively developed an instructional
39 activity based on and consistent with Piaget’s theory of intellectual devel-
opment and its educational implications. Research suggests that teacher
1 planning is a key component of effective instruction (Calderhead, 1996).

Through planning collaboratively, students not only engage in their own
3 teaching metacognition, but also can monitor and evaluate their own
effectiveness and think critically by comparing their plans with those of
5 their peers. In addition to the PBS and InTime (1999 2001) sites des-
cribed in the section on Lesson Analysis, resources for creating lessons
7 include links to documents and websites on various forms of the Learning
Cycle approach. These emphasize teaching for the transition from Con-
9 crete to Formal Operational thinking about the subject content being
taught, and include video clips of constructivist lessons, such as Powerful
11 Teaching: Mathematics and Social Studies. By Fall 2011, all other prod-
uct development options Quiz, Lesson Analysis, and Handouts had
13 been eliminated and all groups were required to create instructional
activities.
15 This option also has evolved through experience, again demonstrating
my own teaching metacognition. Now students are explicitly mandated to
17 design a lesson of their own for this project, rather than retrofit an existing
lesson to make it consistent with the educational implications of Piaget’s
19 theory. Also, instead of just describing their lesson during the class presen-
tation, they are required to conduct part of the lesson, demonstrating
21 application of the educational implications of Piaget’s theory.
Instructional activity topics can be on any school subject. For under-
23 graduate and graduate students taking Adolescent Learning and Develop-
ment, it must be targeted to middle or high school students. For students
25 taking Psychology of Learning and Teaching, the instructional activities
can be for any grade level, from pre-kindergarten to adult. Table 9 shows
27 the “Instructional Activity Design Template” for Spring 2012. It has four
components: Goals/Objectives, Materials/Resources, Teaching Methods
29 and Learning Activities, and Connections to Piaget’s Theory and its Edu-
cational Implications.
31 Another way this option evolved through experience is its title. Origi-
nally it was called a “Lesson Plan.” The name was changed for three rea-
33 sons. First, the phrase “lesson plan” has a specific connotation and an
implied formal structure for some of my students. From their perspective,
35 a typical “lesson plan” starts with a “Do Now,” which sets the stage for
the lesson, and ends with a formal or informal assessment. Second, some
37 of my students have no teaching experience, so they have no idea what is
meant by a “lesson plan.” Finally, many students found the idea of creat-
39 ing a “lesson plan” intimidating, either because of its assumed complexity
or because of lack of understanding of what was expected.
282 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1
Table 9. Piaget WebQuest Instructional Activity Design Plan Template
for Spring 2012.
3
You and your partner(s) are required to design your own Instructional Activity applying what AU:6
you learned about Piaget’s theory and its educational implications from our Piaget
5
WebQuest. The curricular content can be for any school subject.
1. Goals/objectives: What do you want to accomplish? What outcomes you expect? Your
7 goals/objectives should use concepts consistent with Piaget’s theory and its educational
implications.
9 2. Materials/resources to be used for this lesson.
3. Teaching Methods and Learning Activities. What will you as the teacher do? What will
11 students do? Provide detailed descriptions.
4. Connections between teaching methods and learning activities to Piaget’s theory and its
educational implications. How are your teaching methods and learning activities consistent
13 with Piaget’s theory and its educational implications, based on what you learned from our
Piaget WebQuest?
15 The following chart is intended to help you organize your thinking for the Instructional
Activity Design (product) your group will write up and submit. You do NOT have to use
this chart when submitting parts 3 and 4 of this plan. However, the information specified in
17 this chart must be included and clearly labeled.
19
(3) Teaching Methods and Learning Activities: (4) Connections to Piaget’s Theory and
What the teacher does and what students do educational implications
21
23
25
27 My concept of a lesson plan for this project was much simpler and
looser than most students envisioned a set of activities by the teacher
29 and students for the purpose of achieving an instructional goal or objec-
tive. In order to allay fears and clarify the confusion, I changed the name
31 to “Instructional Activity,” again reflecting my own teaching metacogni-
tion based on student feedback. This change in terminology has success-
33 fully clarified my expectations and reduced intimidation.
While some students developed instructional activities designed to last
35 one 45 50-minute class period, others were more ambitious and developed
a week’s worth. Before I developed a formal template for this product, I
37 specified the criteria, but students were free to structure the lesson/activity
as they preferred. Table 10 shows a physics lesson developed by a pair of
39 undergraduates, “What Makes Objects Move?” Both the design of the plan
and its connections to Piaget are exemplary.
1 Some created quite comprehensive and detailed plans including: class

background, grade level, duration, theme, motivation, understanding
3 goals, essential questions, overall objectives, teaching methods, learning
activities, instructional materials, assessments, and connections to Piaget’s
5 theory. An example is a five day unit, Putting the “Human” in Human
Rights 1863 1953, which was designed for a 10th grade U.S. history class.
7 Selected aspects of this unit are summarized in Table 11. It is an excellent
reflection of Piaget’s theory in its design and explicit connections to Con-
9 structivist principles.
In conclusion, the Piaget WebQuest was effective for:
11
teaching students about his theory of intellectual development as they
13 consumed and processed information resources,
constructing authentic educational products,
15 contributing these products to their communities of practice through
social support from their peers and me,
17 helping students think about their own thinking and learning.
The scaffolding provided by me and students’ peers set the stage for stu-
19
dents creating their own Individual WebQuests. Thus the theories of Cog-
nitive and Social Constructivism, Information Processing and Situated
21
Learning all underpinned students’ work as they consumed and con-
structed knowledge through the Piaget WebQuest.
23
25
CONSTRUCTING INDIVIDUAL WEBQUESTS
27
Engaging in the Zunal Piaget WebQuest and collaboratively creating an
29 authentic educational product based on what they learned provided stu-
dents with scaffolding for independently creating their own Zunal Web-
31 Quests. Students received temporary support from their peers and
professor. This scaffolding enabled them to individually create their own
33 WebQuest, reflecting the essence of social constructivism. The metacogni-
tive benefits from the Piaget WebQuest experiences were also applied to
35 their individual WebQuest design.
Undergraduate and graduate teacher education students in Adolescent
37 Learning and Development were required to use the same Zunal page tem-
plates they used in the Piaget WebQuest: Title, Introduction, Task, Pro-
39 cess, Evaluation, Conclusion, and Teacher Page. The templates are
Vygotskian cultural tools which serve as scaffolds for structuring the
284 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1
Table 10. PWQ Lesson Plan: What Makes Objects Move?
3 Lesson Component Description
Objectives Students will be able to: (1) Understand that motion is the result of
5 the imbalance P of forces, (2) Apply Newton’s first law to a
manipulative ( F=0 in equilibrium) scenario to find a missing
7 force.
Teaching methods TUG-OF-WAR Groups compete against each other. Ask questions
while students are watching, for example, “If everyone is pulling
9 on the rope, how come it isn’t moving? Class discussion: for
example, “What makes things move? Draw a Free-Body Diagram
11 (FBD) of the Tug of War with arrows while leading class
discussion. Slideshow from Robotics Academy. Model the FBD
on the board, pausing after each step. Give each group a small
13 scenario to draw a FBD to calculate the missing force. Walk
around to assess student understanding, and guide their work.
15 Choose two students to present their FBDs on the board.
Homework: Give students one additional scenario to work out at
17 home. Use for next day’s “Do Now.”
Learning activities When students enter the classroom, they will take a number 1 6 in
order to determine seating in group for the class. Each of the
19 6 stations will have a scale attached such that students can each
take turns pulling. Students must record “How much can you
21 pull?” Groups will compete against each other. Students answer
questions. Misdirected Answers: Because He’s heavier-He has
more force. Because his shoes are sliding-His shoes are resisting
23 with a small force. Focused Answer: Because the forces are
balanced. While watching, students will be drawing their own
25 FBD of themselves pulling on the rope. Students present their
FBDs on the board.
27 Instructional materials Manipulatives, for example, scales and ropes. A notes sheet to write
down observations, conclusions, and free body diagrams.
Piaget connections Learning Cycle Model: places high value on students pursuing
29 answers to questions. Students do the Exploration primarily in
groups, while the teacher generally acts as a facilitator; then
31 discussion during the Concept Introduction. Students apply their
understanding in the last part of the cycle Application for
homework. Specific Piaget concepts employed are: Maturation
33 Students must be able to physically and mentally operate in their
environment, Experience pulling the rope will affect their
35 physical experience immediately, and their logical-mathematical
experience later in the lesson; Social Communication Students
37 must record forces, answer questions from the teacher about their
experiences, and communicate with others the FBDs they have
drawn. Equilibration Students probably cannot find unknown
39 forces on an object. As they deal with the new information, they
must construct a way of thinking about motion and forces to
make sense of the situation.
1
Table 11. PWQ Lesson Plan: Putting the “Human” in Human Rights.
3 Component Description of Selected Unit Components
Class background Class currently exploring them of Freedom through U.S. race
5 relations and human rights. Previous lesson covered Emancipation
Proclamation, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Black
7 Codes and the Jim Crow Laws
Grade level 10th
Duration Five 45-minute periods
9 Theme U.S. history (1863 1953), the struggle for human rights
Motivation To explore human rights issues in U.S. history though traditional
11 activities as well as dramatic exercises to deepen their theoretical
understanding to a more personal understanding.
Understanding goals Become familiar with the origins of the Civil Rights Movement and
13 the contradictions of America’s models of freedom. Work to
develop a personal definition of freedom. Make personal
15 connections with current and past abuses of human rights.
Essential questions What does freedom mean? Who has a right to freedom? Are you free?
17 Prove it.
Overall objectives Recognize the causes of conflict between white and African
Americans and understand the role of racism in America. Explore
19 the history of intolerance in America and the meanings of freedom.
Teaching methods Class discussion, role playing, index card exercise, Graffiti Wall,
21 report-back sessions, small group discussions, digital pictures of
students’ images
Learning activities Walk around room and add reactions to the quotes at the top of each
23 page on each sheet of butcher paper. Activate prior knowledge and
make personal connections to the concepts. Begin to “think out of
25 the box” by adding not only factual items but also gut reactions,
drawings, phrases etc. Groups create and present a still image to
27 depict what the concept means to them. Peer assessment.
Instructional Photographs, primary source documents, video camera, butcher
Materials paper, markers, classroom computer
29 Connections to Piaget Constructivism includes presenting curriculum from “whole to part,”
starting with big questions. Students make connections to what
31 they have already learned, what they are learning and their own
personal lives. Activities convey multiple perspectives and the idea
that “truth” is complex and relies heavily on one’s own
33 interpretation. Students explore ideas through ways not possible in
traditional classrooms where students are passive learners. Students
35 take control of their own learning and determine what they would
like to learn more about. Activities seek students’ points of view.
37 Activities allow the teacher and students to assess student learning
by observing the development of each image and the journey the
group goes through to reach the final image.
39
286 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 WebQuest process. Becoming familiar with these page templates while

engaged in the Piaget WebQuest facilitated the process of using these tem-
3 plates on their own.
Constructing a WebQuest is a complex, multistage process. Students
5 were required to make sure theirs would last at least five class periods,
constituting a long-term WebQuest. It could be part of a larger unit or
7 self-contained. Students were encouraged to develop one that they would
really use with their own current or prospective middle or high school
9 students.
WebQuest creation requires identifying, selecting and/or creating, and
11 providing access to a wide range of resources for students to consume and
process, and from which students would construct their own understanding
13 of the material to be learned. It also requires specifying teaching methods
and learning activities which culminate in their students creating authentic
15 educational products and contributing them to their own communities of
practice as learners, reflecting what they have learned.
17 To help students design effective WebQuests, steps with specific due
dates were devised so they could pace development and obtain feedback at
19 each stage of the process. A sample schedule is:
October 17 Register with Zunal, Topic, grade level (in Multimedia
21
Center)
November 7 Title and Introduction
23
November 14 Task and Process (in Multimedia Center)
November 28 Evaluation, Conclusion, and Teacher Page (in Multime-
25
dia Center)
December 12 and 19 Class Presentation
27
This scaffolding was further enhanced by scheduling several classes in
29 the School of Education Multimedia Center where there were enough com-
puters for students to work on their WebQuests and get my comments on
31 drafts of their plans. Another reason for scheduling sessions in the Multi-
media Center is concern about the Digital Divide. Not all students in my
33 academic community have computers, primarily because of financial lim-
itations. Most of my students have full-time jobs and family responsibilities
35 which sometimes make it difficult to do online assignments. Students were
also invited to visit me during office hours to get feedback while developing
37 their WebQuests. Feedback provided in these contexts enabled students to
monitor their progress and make revisions before the final due date,
39 thereby helping them use their metacognition and become reflective practi-
tioners in this use of technology to enhance teaching and learning.
1 The variety of students’ Individual WebQuest topics is fascinating (see

Table 12). Directions for their Title and Introduction pages evolved to
3 emphasize capturing students’ interest immediately. Students were encour-
aged to create catchy titles and beginnings of the introductions, and they
5
7 Table 12. Examples of Individual WebQuest Titles.

Subject Titles
9 English/language arts/ Figuring Out Figurative Language: From Poetry to Pop Music
literature Making Shakespeare Personal
11 Living the Tragedy: Traditional Greek Tragedy in a Modern Day
School Setting!
13 Are You the Freak or the Mighty?
Inside the Outsiders
History/social studies
15 The Atomic Bomb: Justified to Save Lives or Inhumane?
Hosni Mubarak v. the State of New York
White School, Black School and Integration of the Little Rock
17 Nine
Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Have Something to Say to
19 You!!!
Mathematics Swing Batter
21 Microsoft Excel Your Way
Golden Proportion: The Quest for Fibonacci
The Math You Missed
23
Right Angles are Your Friend
Science Do Neurons Skype?
25 Chemical Bonding: A Love Affair with Elements on the Periodic
Table
27 Ecosystems: A Web of Life
Let’s Learn about the Smallest Thing on the Earth
29 Art Explorations of Identity through Photography
Arts in Motion: A Final Look at Puppets
Exploring and Experiencing Conceptual Art
31
CUT IT OUT! Printmaking with Stencils
Music Let’s Get the Groove Going
33 Health Above the Influence
Stressful Times with Stressless Solutions
35 Foreign language Un Viaje a Madrid!
Theater If You Don’t Become an Actor, You’ll Never Be a Factor
37 Machinima: What It Is and Why It Can Help You in Your English
Lit and Theater Classes
Life Before the Rocks: A Theatrical Journey to Grosse Ile
39 Business/economics Show Me the Money!
288 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 were expected to pose questions in the introduction which required their

students to actively engage with the material to be learned.
3 At the end of the semester students had about 10 minutes to showcase
their WebQuests. The class presentations took two class periods and were
5 conducted in classrooms with a SmartBoard or the Multimedia Center.
Although most students used the Smartboard’s interactive capabilities
7 when presenting their WebQuests, some were intimidated by it and just
used the computer’s keyboard.
9 Students were given the option whether or not to publish their Web-
Quests, thereby making them available to the public. This decision had no
11 impact on their grade for the project. Students who chose not to publish
their WebQuest were required to send me their User Name and Password
13 so that I could examine it more carefully before grading the project. For
students who had published their WebQuests, I went to their URLs to
15 examine them more closely before grading. Students were encouraged to
share published URLs with their classmates so that they could explore
17 them in more depth than provided by the 10-minute class overview.
The overwhelming majority of students who constructed their own
19 WebQuests enjoyed the process of developing them, looked forward to
implementing them in their classrooms, and created excellent WebQuests.
21 Over the three years of this project, fewer than a handful objected to it.
Their complaints reflected a general resistance to mandated uses of tech-
23 nology in teaching.
One aspect of the project that made it more palatable was the evolution
25 of the option, rather than the requirement to publish it. Another was the
ability to continue editing the WebQuest in the future, whether or not it
27 was published. Students knew and saw evidence of my extensive editing of
the Piaget WebQuest, which I originally published in February, 2009.
29 Some of my students enthusiastically reported successfully implementing
their Individual WebQuests in their own classrooms with their own
31 students.
33
CONCLUSIONS
35
Engaging in and creating WebQuests requires students to consume a vari-
37 ety of information resources, process their contents, and use this knowl-
edge as the basis for constructing their own understanding.
39 My own teaching metacognition was essential for helping me design and
continuously revise both the Piaget and Individual WebQuest projects.
1 From these experiences it seems clear that teaching metacognition is an

essential component of successfully guiding students in the process of
3 engaging in and creating WebQuests, which can be a highly motivating
and effective method of instruction and learning.
5 To succeed in both of these projects, students needed to use their meta-
cognition as they consumed and constructed knowledge and achieved suffi-
7 cient understanding to enable them to create authentic education products
based on what they had learned. By creating and sharing these authentic
9 educational products with their peers, other teacher education students,
they were active participants in a community of practice, and therefore
11 engaged in situated learning both while engaged in the Piaget WebQuest
and in creating their own Individual WebQuests.
13 These authentic educational products are also cultural artifacts, as
defined by Social Constructivist theory. Creating them requires students to
15 generate personal understanding of the content and processes through the
resources they have consumed, and through interacting with and integrat-
17 ing the perspectives of their peers, thereby involving both Cognitive and
Social Constructivism. Engaging in and creating WebQuests involves the
19 consumption and construction of knowledge, and are underpinned by a
combination of complementary theories.
21
23
UNCITED REFERENCES AU:2
25
Beamon Crawford (2007); Hassanien (2006); Ramirez (2008)
27
29 REFERENCES
31 Beamon Crawford, G. (2007). Brain-based teaching with adolescent learning in mind (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
33 classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
35 Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
37 Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: Macmillan.
39 Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the
crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning
290 HOPE J. HARTMAN
1 and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Crawford, K. (1996). Vygotskian approaches to human development in the information era.
3 Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 43–62.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York, NY: D.C. Heath and Company.
5 Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved from http://webquest.sdsu.
edu/about_webquests.html
7 Dodge, B. (2001). FOCUS: Five rules for writing a great WebQuest. Learning and Leading
with Technology, 28(8), 6 9, 58.
Gruber, H. E., & Voneche, J. J. (1995). The essential Piaget (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic
9 Books.
Hartman, H. J. (2001a). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in
11 learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 149–172). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Hartman, H. J. (2001b). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H.
13 J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and prac-
tice (pp. 33–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
15 Hartman, H. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). A broad BACEIS for improving thinking. Instruc-
tional Science, 21(5), 401–425.
17 Hartman, H. J. (2009 2012). Discovering and uncovering Piaget. Retrieved from http://zunal.
com/webquest.php?user=22695
Hartman, H. J. (2009). A guide to reflective practice for new and experienced teachers.
19 New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hassanien, A. (2006). Using Webquest to support learning with technology in higher educa-
21 tion. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(1), 41–49.
Herman, P., & Gomez, L. M. (2009). Taking guided learning theory to school: Reconciling
cognitive, motivational and social contexts of instruction. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy
23 (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 62–81). New York, NY: Rou-
tledge Press.
25 InTime. (1999 2001). Retrieved fromhttp://www.intime.uni.edu AU:3
Karplus, R., & Lawson, C. A. (1974). Science curriculum improvement study: Teachers hand-
27 book. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California.
Kuhn, D. (2008). Formal operations from a twenty-first century perspective. Human Develop-
ment, 51, 48–55.
29 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31 Manning, J. B., & Carpenter, L. B. (2008). Assistive technology WebQuests: Improving learning
for preservice teachers. Techtrends, 52(6), 47 52. Retrieved from Eric Database
(EJ838472).
33 March, T. (2002 2006). What WebQuests are (really). Retrieved from http://hppa.spps.org/
uploads/Best_WebQuests_._com_1539C6.pdf
35 Mayer., R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?:
The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
37 PBS. (2004). Concept to classroom: Constructivist paradigm for teaching and learning. Retrieved
from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html
Piaget, J. (1971a). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Viking
39 Press.
1 Piaget, J. (1971b). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York, NY: Gross-
man Publishers: A Division of Viking.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development,
3 15, 1–12.
Ramirez, L. (2008). Webquests: A tool to develop thinking skills. Rio workshop conference.
5 Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/lucram/webquests-a-tool-to-develop-think-
ing-skills
7 Schrock, K. (1995-2012). Web quest in our future: The teacher’s role in cyberspace. Kathy
Schrock’s guide for educators. Discovery Education. Retrieved from http://school.disco-
veryeducation.com/schrockguide/webquest/webquest.html
9 Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
11 Unal, Z., & Unal, A. (2010). Preservice and in-service teachers’ attitudes toward WebQuests
as a method of classroom instruction. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp.
13 3377–3385). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In
15 M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. S. Cambridge (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: AU:4
Harvard University Press.
17 Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Integrating WebQuests into preservice teacher education.
Educational Media International, 45(1), 59 73. Retrieved from http://odevler.unalcakir-
oglu.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/webquests.pdf
19 Zheng, R., Stucky, B., McAlack, M., Menchana, M., & Stoddart, S. (2005). WebQuest learn-
ing as perceived by higher-education learners. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice
21 to Improve Learning, 49(4), 41–49.
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Please e-mail or fax your responses

Book: CTHE-V006A-3610642
and any corrections to:
Chapter: 10
E-mail:
Fax:
Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for typesetting, some questions may have arisen. These are listed below.
Please check your typeset proof carefully and mark any corrections in the margin of the proof or compile them as a
separate list.
Disk use
Sometimes we are unable to process the electronic file of your article and/or artwork. If this is the case, we have pro-
ceeded by:
& Scanning (parts of) your article & Rekeying (parts of) your article
& Scanning the artwork
Bibliography
If discrepancies were noted between the literature list and the text references, the following may apply:
& The references listed below were noted in the text but appear to be missing from your literature
list. Please complete the list or remove the references from the text.
& UNCITED REFERENCES: This section comprises references that occur in the reference list but
not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text or delete it. Any reference not
dealt with will be retained in this section.
Queries and/or remarks
Location in Query / remark Response

Article
AU:1 The text “The third semester the types of questions..” has been changed to “In the ZQBX
third semester, the types of questions. . .” Please confirm.
AU:2 Please provide text citations for the following references: Beamon Crawford
(2007); Hassanien (2006); Ramirez (2008). If no citations are available, the ZQBX
references should be deleted from the list
AU:3 Please provide article title in reference “InTime (1999 2001).” ZQBX
AU:4 City name has been added in reference “Vygotsky (1978).” Please confirm. ZQBX
AU:5 The text “I thought I would be cool. . .” has been changed to “I thought it would be ZQBX
cool. . ..” Please confirm.
AU:6 The text “design your own Instructional Activity” has been italicized as italics is ZQBX
preferred for emphasis. Please confirm.
AU:7 Please Provide Keywords. ZQBX

Consuming and Constructing Knowledge THR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consuming and Constructing Knowledge THR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

1 metacognition as they engage in the Piaget WebQuest and create their

1 3. Process steps and information resources needed for completing the

1 with nine components including: looking at problems from multiple per-

23 CONSUMING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE

25 Two key psychological processes identified in the title of this chapter

1 as a metacognitive or information processing activity, as a constructivist

1 Vygotsky (1978) emphasized connections between people and the socio-

19 Table 1. Characteristics of Cognitive and Social Constructivism.

1 of the world and constructing knowledge, and the importance of challeng-

1 require students to think metacognitively, reflecting on their own thinking,

17 As a professor, I combine these theories and encourage my students to

1 which learning occurs. In this case, teacher education students participate

1 learning one of the educational implications of Piaget’s theory

35 How Does It Work?

37 A carefully sequenced set of procedures guides students through their Pia-

1 authentic educational product based on what students learn from it and

1 benefit from seeing the instructional activities implemented from your

13 As previously mentioned, after individually consuming selected resources,

Roma, a right-handed child shows up to play on (c) Accommodation. Roma has a

37 The other website, InTime (1999 2001), from the University of

1 Table 5 shows an example of the Probing Questions for the Learning

15 Table 5. InTime Principles of Learning Video Probing Questions:

Goals/objectives Investigate different variables that can impact heart

5 Record heart rate using monitor and pulse sticks.

21  “Key Piaget Ideas” describing five of his most important beliefs;

21  “5 Factors Explaining Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory,” a

37 Instructional Activity Design

1 planning is a key component of effective instruction (Calderhead, 1996).

1 Some created quite comprehensive and detailed plans including: class

1 WebQuest process. Becoming familiar with these page templates while

1 The variety of students’ Individual WebQuest topics is fascinating (see

7 Table 12. Examples of Individual WebQuest Titles.

1 were expected to pose questions in the introduction which required their

1 From these experiences it seems clear that teaching metacognition is an

Please e-mail or fax your responses

Location in Query / remark Response

You might also like

21 “Key Piaget Ideas” describing five of his most important beliefs;

21 “5 Factors Explaining Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory,” a