Sandra’s ICT Blog

On finding out that i am going to actually make my own WebQuest in ED4134 i am completely freaked. After merely being introduced to WebQuests i cannot fathom how i am going to put a fullt-fledged WebQuest of my own together. To get more of a feel for WebQuests i decided to completely ‘the WebQuest about WebQuests’ (who named this! how lame! lol). I suppose i can conclude that after spending my precious time completing this WebQuest i am starting to get more of a feel for the elements of a ‘good’ WebQuest as opposed to a poor one. This little tutorial greatly helped me with the portfolio item that i just completed! I think that once you complete a WebQuest and then analyse one you tend to take for granted the amount of work and effort that has been put in (which kind of scares me, for i dont want to complete a WebQuest that i would rate as poorly as the ’shocking sharks’ one i examined). I want to be able to create a WebQuest that facilitates inquiry based learning, guided discovery and problem based learning so that students will be able to go beyond, completely extending themselves intellectually as to a specific topic.

According to Mark Lee “the WebQuest model focuses on having students use Web-based resources supplied by the teacher/WebQuest designer, as opposed to having students find resources for themselves.” On reflection of my primary school experience i recall the majority of WebQuests that i engaged in being more of the comprehension-rote learning style, not having me find my own resources and such. In regards to Mark Lee’s comment there are both advantages and disadvantages to the modern WebQuest approach. Firstly, in regards to advantages with students having to use the resources they have questions posed to them which cannot be answered simply by viewing a site and regurgitating the information that it provides. Also, by using the resources higher order thinking is facilitated so that students are able to fufil the criterion of analysing, synthesising and evaluating through a simple internet task sooner rather than later. Further i think that by ‘using’ resources rather than having to sift through all the endless crap provided by search engines e.g. AltaVista this saves ample time that can be dedicated to analysing the information provided. Though in regards to disadvantages and this approach i think that children should be able to have the choice to find internet sites that may be better suited to what they are seeking out, as some teachers may not be the best judges of relevant and accurate sites in relation to information.

I sincerely do not think that WebQuests are suitable for for all types of learning situations and scenarios as i tend to feel that for younger grades in primary especially a more hands on approach is needed for some tasks. I dont think that young children can particularly focus long enough on a task to be able to complete a WebQuest thoroughly enough, especially in the hot weather. I think that WebQuests do have their merits but in my future classrooms they would be a rarity because lets face it, they take quite a while to make and they dont exactly develop the motor skills that young children need to. I believe WebQuests would be more predominant amongst the secondary year groups rather than primary schoolers, where it is more about comprehension as compared to high order analysing, synthesising and evaluating.

 (Advanced). How do WebQuests support Constructivist learning?  According to Funderstanding, “Constructivism is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own “rules” and “mental models,” which we use to make sense of our experiences. Learning, therefore, is simply the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences.” I think that by understanding constructivism one can link WebQuests to the Constructivist approach as by taking part in ‘using’ resources one can analyse, synthesis and evaluate, all constructivist approaches rather than regurgitate.

Mark Lee proposed the question: What is meant by scaffolding (c.f. the work of Lev Vygotsky), and why is it important within the context of a WebQuest? To be honest i had no idea what scaffolding actually was, that was until i did a little research of my own. I found out that scaffolding is defined as “A process by which adults or more able peers provide supportive structures to help children learn and play. Scaffolding occurs at a time when children are faced with a challenge that they can solve with a simple hint, question, or prompt”, thankyou google! So therefore scaffolding is important to WebQuests in general beacause a WebQuest provides a structure that allows children to interactively learn while under the illusion of playing on a site. By ‘using’ resources and ‘transforming’ and ‘configuring’ answers from the information they are unknowingly participating in Vygotsky’s notion of scaffolding…

Anyway to end on a good note… i finished my portfolio item yay! sadly the Newcastle Knights lost to Parramatta!

WebQuest 1- Freaky Frogs. I rated this WebQuest a 37/50, 74%. If my class were specifically studying science, with a focus on frog mutation, I would definitely use this WebQuest. In terms of overall aesthetics I found that the WebQuest was lacking visual stimulation for the students that this would be targeted at. As there was no immediate stimulation I feel that students would make little connection to the immediate concepts and ideas that this WebQuest deals with. Though in regards to navigating the WebQuest the links were simple allowing the student easy access to the task at hand. Yet, the external links were problematic as many were not able to be accessed. On a brighter note, the introduction was intriguing, setting the tone for a fun WebQuest to undertake, having the students envisage themselves coming across the mutated frogs, compelling them to find out more to fulfil their curiosity. The ‘task’ section did not clearly connect with the process when expressing what was expected within the teacher’s marking evaluation. Consequently, I believe students would underestimate the importance of this WebQuest task based on the three brief points listed, resulting in students treating the task as more chore-like than a critical analysis. The ‘process’ section was impeccable, with all steps easily understood by students with little scope for confusion. The build up of tasks in the process challenged the students to go beyond and build up a strong knowledge base of frog deformity, even though separate roles weren’t really assigned. I was not impressed by the resources on this WebQuest, even though students had 3 weeks to complete the tasks, I feel there were too many repetitive sites to investigate with some links out of date as well. I thought the accompanying criteria for teachers was well integrated with the tasks, providing a clear marking rubric that students would be able to understand easily, therefore completing the tasks to an exemplary standard. These students will surely have the skills to make “a difference in the life of freaky frogs.”

WebQuest 2- Shocking Sharks. I rated this WebQuest a 33.5/50, 67%. If a class was studying sharks I’m not sure if this would be the most suitable WebQuest. In terms of overall aesthetics, I found this WebQuest lacking visually, with basic shark images failing to promote a relationship with the task described. With little visual stimulation and images that emphasise ‘shocking sharks’, students would be underestimating the WebQuest. In regards to navigating the WebQuest, with the amount of links on the one page, I felt younger students would possibly lose their train of thought. Further, there were also problematic external links unable to be accessed, proving troublesome for the student working through the WebQuest. I felt that the introduction was lacking, with no elements of intrigue with a rather lame approach at motivating the student as to the task. Further, the introduction was far too brief, and not eye catching at all, doing little to outline what was to come in the task, not being clear cut enough to have the students reflect on their prior knowledge of ‘shocking sharks’.  The ‘task’ on this WebQuest was clear and concise, connecting to what was expected of the student within the marking rubric. There was little scope for wrong interpretation of the task, with students excited at the prospect of creating their own shark commercial or adventure story, going beyond a simple rote type task. The ‘process’ section was clear, with steps categorised into research and writing components via specific images (pencils and sharks). Process activities were able to elicit further understanding with checks in place where students were to share and contrast their research, even though individual roles weren’t really assigned. The resources connected to the WebQuest were terrible, with the few able to be accessed containing repetitive information.  Students would be better to find their own websites regarding sharks. The accompanying rubric for teachers was well incorporated with the tasks, with a marking rubric that students could go by to complete their tasks on ‘shocking sharks’ at an exemplary level.  These students will be even more terrified of ‘shocking sharks’ after all they’ve found!