BioWebQuest: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a “WebQuest” Model
of Inquiry Learning in a Biology Sequence for Non-science Majors
Michael Burke, Technology Integration Specialist, The University of Tennessee
Stan Guffey, Lecturer, The University of Tennessee
Shane Colter, Program Coordinator, The University of Tennessee
Jerry Riehl, Web Instructional Technology Specialist, The University of Tennessee
Introduction
The Division of Biology of The University of Tennessee has two introductory biology sequences designed to serve the needs of two distinct groups of students. Biology 130/140 is intended for students majoring in biology, pre-health tracks, and related programs. The 101/102 sequence serves the general science education requirement of all colleges in The University of Tennessee. Course content and pedagogy should differ in the two sequences, as a function of the different needs of the two categories of students.
Biology 101/102 (Humankind in the Biotic World) aims to promote scientific and biological literacy for informed and participatory citizenship. Course content provides a broad overview of scientific understanding of living nature with a particular emphasis on human biology and human interactions with the rest of living nature. Our goal is to provide students with the necessary basic background knowledge, and the critical thinking and research skills to help them evaluate issues of science and society in the contemporary world. Human reproductive cloning, stem cell research, genetically modified organisms, biological weapons, global climate change, and biodiversity decline, to name a few, are all important and contentious biological issues in our society, issues that our students need to understand in order to make informed decisions in public and private life. An approach that aims to be comprehensive cannot really be so, and in striving for content comprehensiveness neglects other critical areas of pedagogy.
The biology sequences consist of two lecture classes and one laboratory session per week. Lecture classes, conducted by faculty, are very large, ranging from 350 to 500 students. Laboratory sessions have a maximum of 25 students and are conducted by graduate students in the biological sciences, under faculty supervision. The laboratory component of Biology 101/102 has not kept up with our development of the lecture portion of the course, or with our development of the Biology 130/140 laboratories. Traditional demonstration labs employed can serve an important function in enforcing fundamental understanding and encouraging an appreciation of scientific methods and knowledge. However, the non-science major does not need training in laboratory techniques and laboratory research methods in preparation for further course work in biology. Rather, the focus should be on developing research and critical thinking skills fostered by problem-based learning.
Problem-Based Learning
Research and experience in teaching and learning have repeatedly shown that problem and inquiry based pedagogy, learning by doing, helps students develop a deeper awareness of fundamental concepts. Students develop ownership of concepts as prerequisites to an understanding of a larger range of related and more complex concepts, and as tools for the construction and synthesis of new knowledge and understanding. In addition to promoting deeper awareness through ownership, active problem-centered learning requires and fosters metacognitive awareness , an awareness of the larger context and connections forming a particular inquiry domain. Students must be aware of and explore what they know about the problem, what they don’t know about the problem, and what strategies they will employ to seek needed information and understanding. Students must consider what strategies are effective in seeking a solution (and adjust accordingly), and they must distinguish information that is useful from what is tangential or even irrelevant.
Cooperative, small-group work is an essential component of inquiry and problem based learning. At the most fundamental level, learning research consistently demonstrates that students working in small groups tend to learn more and learn more effectively than students subjected to more traditional instructional modes. In problem and inquiry learning small group work has the added value (and importance) of fostering learning communities that can tackle problems that are too complex, or that are at least too time consuming to be effectively pursued by students working individually. Students also feel more comfortable speaking in small groups than in larger group settings, and are thus more willing to share ideas and raise questions , an essential feature of an inquiry that is too large for an individual student to undertake alone. Finally small group work more closely mirrors the problem solving environment of professional practice in most fields, providing students with experience in realistic contexts for the application and synthesis of knowledge and the development of consensus or compromise solutions.
Cooperative inquiry based learning activities are centered on problems. Problems that can engage and challenge students should be open-ended (or “ill structured”) and of sufficient breadth to allow for (and require) the participation of all group members. Open-ended problems are those that can be approached a variety of different ways and that have multiple possible solutions or outcomes (syntheses, consensuses, or compromises). Such ill-structured problems oblige students to work together to identify their particular problem solving strategies and solutions.
Cooperative, problem-based learning activities are not without their difficulties. Students will likely lack the skills to effectively evaluate sources of information, and may be uncomfortable with or uncertain how to organize collaborative work. These problems should be addressed at the front end through careful design of the problem and of guidelines for the process, and through mentoring by the facilitator throughout the process. The WebQuest model provides a useful structure for designing collaborative problems, explicitly dealing with some of the potential difficulties at the front end.
WebQuests
The WebQuest model for instruction was developed in early 1995 at San Diego State University by Bernie Dodge with Tom Marsh. In their own words, “a WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web. WebQuests are designed to use learners' time well, to focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners' thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation.”
Dodge describes six “critical elements” of webquests: an introduction (background material), a task, a set of information sources needed to complete the task, a description of the process (in clearly described steps), guidance in how to organize information acquired, and a conclusion. Dodge describes as “non-critical” attributes the tendency for WebQuests to involve group activities and motivational elements (roles, scenarios, simulations), and points out that WebQuests may focus on a single discipline or may be interdisciplinary.
In summer 2002 the Division of Biology and The University of Tennessee Instructional Technologies Collaborative (ITC) developed a series of computer based WebQuest modules for Biology 101 laboratories as a part of the ITC’s “Wireless Instructional Initiatives” project. We designed these modules as inquiry-driven vehicles to promote individual and collaborative research, critical thinking, and communication of ideas, and to assess the usefulness of wireless technology in an undergraduate laboratory setting. Three modules were developed that formed the central issues focus of the lecture portion of the course: reproductive and stem-cell cloning, transgenic organisms in agriculture, and global climate change. Each module incorporated leading questions, directed research sources, and instructions for organizing group effort and developing products (papers and presentations). Evaluation of students involved instructor, peer, and self evaluation of processes and products.
Methods
The Biology 101 class during Fall Semester 2002 had an enrollment of 365 students in 19 laboratory sections with no more than 24 students per section. To evaluate the effectiveness of the WebQuest inquiry-driven approach, eight sections were randomly selected to have laboratories centered on the WebQuest modules, using wireless Macintosh laptop computers. The other eleven sections participated in traditional demonstration laboratories. Two of the lab instructors had one class participating in traditional demonstration laboratories, and one class using WebQuests. We quantitatively evaluated student performance on lecture exams as a surrogate for course engagement, and qualitatively evaluated student and lab instructor perceptions of the WebQuest approach.
Quantitative assessment compared the four lecture exam scores of WebQuest and demonstration sections. Average scores of four lecture exams and an average of all four exams were calculated for each section. The null hypothesis of no difference between the average scores in “WebQuest” and demonstration sections was tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test for equality of medians. Individual final exam scores for students in the WebQuest (N = 141) and demonstration sections (N = 224) were compared using Student’s t-test for equality of means. Individual exam scores for WebQuest and demonstrations sections facilitated by the same instructor were compared using the Mann-Whitney test.
For the qualitative assessment, students participating in the WebQuest lab sections were asked to complete an anonymous online survey during the first two weeks of class and a final survey during the last week. Surveys included questions utilizing Likert scale and open-ended formats. At the end of the semester we also conducted informal interviews with most of the participating lab instructors to evaluate their perceptions of the program.
The initial survey solicited the students’ self-perception of their comfort level and experience using computing technologies and working in groups. Students were asked about their expectations for the class, including whether they anticipated that the availability of the laptops would improve their learning experience. The final survey also asked students to rate the extent to which computers were used for class work (both in and out of class), the performance of the equipment, their level of change in experience with various computer applications, and their post-project comfort levels with group work and using computing technologies.
Results
The numerical means on all four exams and the overall average were higher in the “WebQuest” sections than the traditional sections (Table); however, the differences were small and not statistically significant by the Mann-Whiney test.
In seven of the eight comparisons involving instructors facilitating both a demonstration and a WebQuest section, the average score for “WebQuest” sections was higher than the traditional sections. In one comparison, of final exams, the average was higher for the traditional section than the “WebQuest” section. This difference may be due to the departure prior to the final of students in the traditional section who were not doing well in the class. Twenty students were enrolled in the section at the beginning of the semester, but only 17 took the final exam. Participation in the instructor’s “WebQuest” section did not decrease. By the Mann-Whitney test none of the differences in the eight comparisons were significant.
The average final exam score of all “WebQuest” sections was higher than the average score of the traditional demonstration sections, but the differences were not significant using Students t-test for the equality of means.
Table: Average Exam Scores for Demonstration and WebQuest Sections
| |
Exam 1 |
Exam 2 |
Exam 3 |
Final Exam |
Exam Average |
| Demonstration |
61.7 |
54.1 |
64.4 |
64.4 |
61.2 |
| Webquest |
64.5 |
54.5 |
64.6 |
65.7 |
62.3 |
The overall results of our assessment of student perceptions were not unexpected. Students expressed an increase in comfort level with working in groups and using computing technologies over the duration of the semester. In general, the students reported having a positive experience in the WebQuest lab sections.
The majority of students completing the initial survey strongly agreed that “the availability of the laptops would improve the learning experience” and that “the laptops would be valuable for conducting in-class research.” The vast majority also indicated that they had access to a computer (laptop or desktop) outside of class and that they were either “Very” or “Sufficiently” comfortable with computers, although only ~25% indicated that they were comfortable using a Macintosh system in particular. In general, the students said they had experience working in groups and were comfortable working in them, although many students indicated that they were less comfortable with being graded on group work.
The data from the final in-class surveys indicated that students overall were quite satisfied with the technical performance of the wireless network and the laptops, and that Internet connectivity in particular made the laptops valuable and was used primarily for class-related activities. Most students indicated that they would like to be in a similar WebQuest lab section again, that they would recommend it to other students, that it was preferable to a traditional lab section class, and that they would like more opportunities to use wireless laptops in their other classes
Students also reported that the majority of their coursework had been done outside of class, almost all of which involved using a computer. Their responses indicated that their educational experience was improved by having wireless network access available in class, and that they agreed that their comfort level working in groups increased and that they benefited from the group experience. Most students felt that they were fairly graded on their work and indicated that they “Liked” the overall experience using the technology.
Common responses to what was best about the project were working in groups, the relevance of information studied, and having access to laptops. Some of the worst aspects cited included the class location/time, issues related to group dynamics, and the workload required of students. Suggestions for improvement focused on providing more computers (preferably in a 1:1 ratio) and supplying PCs instead of Macs to accommodate student comfort levels and familiarity.
The general consensus of the lab instructors was that students in the WebQuest lab sections demonstrated more interest in the topics studied, and that they also found the class material more engaging. They felt that their students benefited from a better grasp of biological concepts than students in the traditional lab sections, as well as from obtaining numerous practical ‘soft’ skills, such as making presentations, conducting group work, communicating with peers, etc.
Suggestions for improvement from the lab instructors included offering more training on teaching (since this model required a different kind of facilitation than traditional labs) and a specific workshop on using the technologies for both students and instructors. They also recommended supplying additional computers and suggested many of their own ideas for lab projects that would utilize the technology.
Discussion
Although student exam scores (as a surrogate for engagement and comprehension of fundamental concepts) were not significantly different between demonstration and WebQuest sections, the consistency of the direction of numerical differences is suggestive and encouraging. Over all, perceptions of the learning utility of the problem-based WebQuests were positive for both students and facilitators.
With these limited conclusions we extended the WebQuest model into a subset of sections of the second course in the Biology sequence in Spring Semester 2003. In this trial we integrated WebQuest modules with a selection of demonstration units used in the traditional labs. Analyses of these results are not complete, but the pattern of higher numerical exam averages for WebQuest sections observed in fall 2002 also holds for the spring sections.
Our qualitative assessments of the success of the WebQuest modules were sufficiently positive to inspire us to adopt WebQuest and other problem and inquiry-based activities, and the use of computers in the laboratory, as the core of our non-science majors laboratories for the 2003-2004 academic year.
Literature Cited
Allen, D. E., B. J. Duch, and S. E. Groh. 1996. The power of problem-based learning in teaching introductory science courses. In Wilkerson, L., and W. H. Gijselaers, eds. Bringing problem based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Bosworth, K. 1994. Developing collaborative skills in college students. In Bosworth, K., and S. Hamilton, eds. Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Campbell, W. E., and K. A. Smith. 1995. New paradigms for college teaching. 1995. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Cohen, E. G. 1994. Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms. Teachers College Press, NY.
Davis, B. G. 1993. Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Gijjselaers, W. H. 1996. Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. In Wilkerson, L., and W. H. Gijselaers, eds. Bringing problem based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Hmelo, C. E., G. S. Gotterer, and J. D. Bransford.1997. A theory-driven approach to to assessing the cognitive effects of PBL. Instructional Science 25:387-408.
Keeping, E. S. 1962. Introduction to statistical inference. D. Van Nostrand, Princeton.
Rhem, J. 1998. Problem-based learning: An introduction. The National Teaching and Learning Forum 8(1):1-2. (Available electronically at: http://www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9812/pbl_1.htm)
Wilkerson, L., and W. H. Gijselaers. 1996. Concluding comments. In Wilkerson, L., and W. H. Gijselaers, eds. Bringing problem based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
|
