C3MS project-based learning model
This article or section is currently under construction
In principle, someone is working on it and there should be a better version in a not so distant future.
If you want to modify this page, please discuss it with the person working on it (see the "history")
Definition
- The C3MS project-based learning model implements a project-oriented design that engages students in frequent content-production as well as collaboration through collective activities. In addition it attemps to build "community". C3MS also refers to a kind of technology.
The model
Pedagogical story-boarding with a C3MS follows a simple principle. The teacher creates a pedagogical scenario (activity) by defining different phases of the work process. Each phase contains at least an elementary activity which in turn should be supported by a tool (portal brick). Larger projects can contain several smaller scenarios. The scenario building bricks, i.e. elementary activities are something like "search on the Internet", "insert a link", "make a comment", "coedit a text", "vote for something", "enter an item to a glossary". It is needless to say that portals can not provide all the tools than can be imagined, e.g. on-line drawing programs are hard to find. Anyhow, it should be planned that at least the products of some activity should be posted to the portal, in order to discuss, annotate and reuse them.
Each scenario described in the >[#activity-catalog Catalog of scenarios (activities)] is composed of a certain amount of steps that can be described in the >[#catalogsimpleacts Catalog of elementary activities] in terms of generic elementary educational activities, which we labeled with a tag. like "BrainStrom" or "SubmitComment". Technical "C3MS bricks" described in >[#catalogc3msbricks Catalog of C3MS bricks] can in their turn, support most of these labeled generic activities. A teacher can therefore plan educational scenarios with the help of a more abstract vocabulary that will help him to choose from a set of supporting technology.
Example 1 A scenario template at high-school level
Let's examine now a larger, but not too complex scenario template that illustrates the basic principles of scenario planning that could happen in a specialized biology class a high school level. Imagine a class where students have to study wild-life of the area. One could imagine that each student can select an animal for study (including more "exotic" genres like insects and fish) and that for each animal a certain amount of options remain open, e.g. study of habitat, behavior with humans, reproduction, etc.
Each project should be defined individually, but the general approach could remain similar for all participants as expressed in the figure. There also could be a certain amount of collective activities, like the construction of a glossary that defines essential terms. If the teacher considers glossary making important for reasons like "students will better understand terms if they search and write and discuss them" or "students really should put some effort into understanding the vocabulary of a domain before they work within", then he can look at our template and fit it to his own needs which are driven by constraints such as education level, time constraints and available technology.
The template for the glossary activity (see >[#learnactivity_glossaire Collaborative glossary]) is just a suggestions. It is important to state again that we only provide ideas regarding the different phases and that we do not even suggest a single mapping to elementary activities nor a single mapping of elementary activities to a technical module. In other words, the teacher must be in control throughout the whole design process. Educational technologist should only offer "half-baked" solutions. Ideally, teachers have to adapt a pedagogical-technical implementation to their conceptual and technical skills and to what they have available. There is also a technical compromise to made between selecting the best tools for each task and not to overwhelm the students with too many tools to be used within a scenario. This example nicely shows some of the "open decision space" teachers may have. After examining the situation he may for instance come with the following solution (table below). As one can see, our hypothetical teacher winds up with 3 tools (Wiki, Links Manager and the News Engine):
| . | Phase | Tools | Instructions to students |
| 1 | participants identify interesting "words" | Wiki | After discussion in the classroom, each student has to select three terms and enter them to the wiki as homework (first come, first goes) |
| 2 | agree on a provisional list | Wiki | In the classroom, the list is discussed and cleaned up and each student will receive 3 items to work on. |
| 3 | search for information and share links | Google,Links manager | Each student has to produce 4 links (day 1) and comment 2 other links (day 2 of homework) |
| 4 | synthesis and editing | Wiki | Each students receives 2 links and has to edit them. Students are encourages to link to other items and external links. |
| 5 | teacher feedback | News engine | Teacher writes a feedback article which is also discussed in class. |
| 6 | editing of final definitions | Wiki | Students make final modification to their work and will be evaluated on this. |
This example illustrates the structure of exploratory scenarios. Generally speaking, a teacher should think about the following setup which reflects the principles of pedagogical workflow introduced in >[#scenariodesign Design of smaller scenarios]:
- Activities should start with some sort of conditioning that will generate curiosity, interest, motivation and also show the interest of technology in our case. The initial classroom discussion and the perspective of publishing a nice glossary on the Internet should do this. In addition, entering 3 words on a Wiki is not very difficult and will make students familiar with the particularity of this tool
- Activities should give space to discovery by induction and therefore include exploration, search for information, experimentation and formalization of working hypothesis that can be confronted to the others. Activities in phase 3 partly implement this.
- Learners should be active and creative, even when they are involved in seemingly simple tasks like glossary making. They should discuss and cooperate with their pairs. Our glossary scenario has some "build-in" collaboration requirements.
- Feedback is important for each student activity. Therefore, we also suggest a formal evaluation of the final product (including a score). The teacher may also give bonus points for cooperative behavior, e.g. forum messages or helpful comments for the other's work. More details are discussed below.
Community, flow and creativity boosting with C3MS portals
While as we showed before, C3MS portal provide rich functionalities for pedagogical "story-boarding" they have been designed first of all as community portals and therefore are ideally suited to boost collective learning, creativity and optimal experience.
First, the portal should be a rich information space for "domain support" and it should encourage students add their own contribution. Such a space also encourages exploration. Typical tools are links managers, wikis, news engines and RSS feed that keep users up-to-date about articles posted to other interesting portals or individual weblogs. Intellectual support is provided via forums, annotations and articles. Student productions are always accessible to all (including visitors) and therefore provide for recognition. One could manage activities by using various standard tools like articles, forums and the calendar, but it may be more appropriate to use special purpose tools. In our experience, it has been shown that students are more like to contribute to an environment if they own an identity. In the student's partly automatically generated home page on the portal one can see their contributions, read public parts of their personal weblog and conversely each production in the portal is signed with a clickable link to the author. A successful teaching by projects pedagogy needs to provide strong emotional support and it is therefore important to encourage spontaneous, playful interaction and corner's for humour that will augment quality of on-line life and contribute to class spirit. Tools like the shoutbox or a little quotation box can do wonders. Lastly, but not least, a personal weblog (diary) can stimulate meta-reflection, in particular if the teacher requires that students write an entry after the completion of each activity
Example 2
Computer-supported project-based courses can nicely be set up in a « blended situation », where face to face teaching is mixed with distance teaching. The methodology and techniques we are reporting here are developed and studied by Synteta (2002) as part of her PhD Thesis and have been tested within DSchneider's teaching. Variants of this model have then been carried out for 2 other classes a TECFA and for 2 distance teaching courses outside our unit. We estimate that the methodology is ready to be used, although adjustments are needed in several areas.
The course that we shall briefly describe here was about « exotic hypertexts » and taught in a mixed format by the authors in 2002. It lasted 6 weeks, with a few initial half days in classroom and a 2 hour presentation of the projects at the end of the course to 12 graduate students in educational technology, who were from many different backgrounds. The students were given a large freedom of choice of subjects within the general theme. The basic requirements were to produce a research plan, to respect task schedules, to participate in mandatory collective work (including diary writing), then to execute the research plan and produce a draft on paper that presented results.
Several pedagogical goals were set, namely (1) Learning something about a specific topic related to more exotic hypertexts (Topic Maps, MOO spaces, Wikis, RDF/RSS syndication, etc.) ; (2) Learning XML ; and (3) learning how to run exploratory projects.
Major phases of the Staf-18 course on « exotic hypertexts »
| Phase | Major Activity | Date | imposed tools (products) |
| 1 | Get familiar with the subject | 21-NOV-2002 | links, Wiki, blog |
| 2 | project ideas, QandR | 29-NOV-2002 | classroom |
| 3 | Students formulate project ideas | 02-DEC-2002 | newsengine, blog |
| 4 | Start project definition | 05-DEC-2002 | ePBL, blog |
| 5 | Finish provisional research plan | 06-DEC-2002 | ePBL, blog |
| 6 | Finish research plan | 11-DEC-2002 | ePBL, blog |
| 7 | Sharing | 17-DEC-2002 | links, blog, annotation |
| 8 | audit | 20-DEC-2002 | ePBL, blog |
| 9 | audit | 10-J AN-2003 | ePBL, blog |
| 10 | Finish paper and product | 16-JAN-2003 | ePBL, blog |
| 11 | Presentation of work | 16-JAN-2003 | classroom |
Project ideas have previously been discussed in the classroom. Then, the course starts with a « wake up » activity in which students had to fill in resources into the Links manager, and few definitions in the Wiki. The classroom activity also includes some traditional teaching, i.e. several introductory lectures plus some questions. The next step consists in formulating projects ideas as articles by the students.
Once they started working on a project, students had to use a special purpose project tool named ePBL, which stands for « Project-Based e-learning » (Synteta, 2003), they had to define particularly research plans with a specially made XML grammar. The required information did concern overall aim of the project, research goals and questions, work packages, etc. Students could upload these files to a server by the means of a « versioning » system. Since students had to work with a validating editor (of their own choice) the XML grammar reinforced the research plans according to some norms. More importantly, the grammar acts as scaffolding or thinking tool helping the students to produce and structure ideas. Contents of the uploaded project file are automatically parsed and summary information is made available in a students/teacher cockpit. Students were asked at regular intervals to update the project file (including workpackage completion information). Teachers then use the cockpit to annotate the project with comments and to register a more formal evaluation. After each audit the teacher also post a summary article in the portal. At the end of the course, students had to write a paper, using once more an XML grammar from which an electronic book containing all the work has been produced.
In addition to the above mentioned main activities, other interactions were carried out. Sometimes, articles about a course-related topic were posted (even spontaneously by students). The portal has also support forums (both technical and conceptual), it displays RSS news, and feeds summary of the news from other interesting sites. Some side blocks contain awareness tools (that is connected, that is passed by new messages in forums, etc.). A shoutbox (mini-chat) was used to reinforce the feeling of being « present » and for short messages from the teacher. Other tools include a calendar and chat rooms. Lastly, after each activity students had to make a diary entry (personal Weblog) that gave the teacher important information on encountered difficulties. The students have also used this tool and the Wiki as personal sounding board.
The main tool used by the teacher besides the ePBL project definition and monitoring application tool was the news engine. It was to be used to announce activities (at least one / week) and to provide feedback regarding activities or observations (namely major difficulties found in Weblogs or forum messages). The news engine therefore is a « heart- beat » tool that gives « pulse » to the whole process, which is considered as very important.
Results of this activity and several experiments with other teachers were very encouraging. We found that all students defined interesting projects (either some exploratory empirical studies or some technical developments) and that they came up with interesting results. The quality of the final paper in this specific course was not generally very good, but then only a draft has been required and we hardly could ask more in a period of 6 weeks. We found that by using this design, students worked harder and respected deadlines much better than others did in previous promotions. Class spirit was quite extraordinary and we shall comment on this later. It also turned out (and this is not surprising) that teacher involvement was a very critical variable. Constant pressure, but also rapid feedback and availability of both the teacher and his teaching assistant were judged to be highly positive in student interviews that we carried out.
We are therefore quite happy in claiming that this quickly outlined design seems to be a good instance of the teacher as facilitator, manager and « orchestrator » paradigm. There were, of course, difficulties encountered in our Staf-18 course, in particular, working with an XML grammar at the very beginning of their studies was both a culture shock and a technical difficulty for most students. They never encountered structured text before and had big difficulties to adapt to a knowledge-tree organization of text. They also had initial difficulties to work with several tools at the same time and to participate in collective knowledge sharing and confrontation activities. However, since activities were mandatory and tools were gradually introduced they very quickly (after about 2 weeks) felt even « at home » in the portal, and really appreciated learning together.
See also the project-based learning article that addresses issues related to the general study environment.
Integration of scenarios and activities
Various learner activities need to be integrated. Since C3MS currently do not provide any integrated workflow capabilities, the teacher must select one or two special tools in order to "drive" a scenario or a larger project. The easiest solution for scenario management (i.e. setting tasks, describing resources and providing feedback) is to use a >[#BEJIJIHI News engine], >[#BEJJFJJC Forums]or a >[#BEJFFJFB Wiki] . Our team developed two additional tools:
ePBL is a "Project-Based e-Learning" module and it provides the following functions: (1) Scaffold students during their projects by "forcing" them to fill in their project specification (through an XML grammar); (2) help students write their final article and (3) help teachers monitor easily several projects in parallel and give them feedback on time. We will describe an example course using ePBL later . See >[#epbl ePBL]
pScenario is a tool that allows teachers to define complete and rich scenarios for various pedagogical formats (face-to-face, at distance or mixed) and to associate student activities with other tools. It is up to teacher to clearly identify needed tools and to combine pScenario with other PostNuke tools (e.g. Wiki, Links Manager, News Engine or special educational tool) into a teaching portal. pScenario also could be used to administer a typical American graduate course that features readings, short exercises and a term paper. Finally, the CRAFT laboratory at EPFL developed a project management tool that allows a teacher to run larger project-based courses. See >[#pscenario pScenario]
References
- Baumgartner, P. & Kalz, M. (2004). Content Management Systeme aus bildungstechnologischer Sicht in Baumgartner, Peter; Häfele, Hartmut & Maier-Häfele, Kornelia: Content Management Systeme für e-Education. Auswahl, Potenziale und Einsatzmöglichkeiten, Studienverlag, Innsbruck 2004.
- Baumgartner, P., I. Bergner und L. Pullich (2004). Weblogs in Education - A Means for Organisational Change. In: Multimedia Applications in Education Conference (MApEC) Proceedings 2004. L. Zimmermann. Graz: 155-166. [1]
- Baumgartner, P. (2004). The Zen Art of Teaching - Communication and Interactions in eEducation. Proceedings of the International Workshop ICL2004, Villach / Austria 29 September-1 October 2004, Villach, Kassel University Press. CD-ROM, ISBN: 3-89958-089-3. PDF
- Class, Barbara et Mireille Bétrancourt (2004) Un portail en éducation à distance : vers quelle ergonomie pédagogique ? / Ergonomics, community portal and distance learning : some pedagogical issues", Actes Ergo'IA 2004 [2]
- Schneider, Daniel. (2005) "Gestaltung kollektiver und kooperativer Lernumgebungen" in Euler & Seufert (eds.), E-Learning in Hochschulen und Bildungszentren. Gestaltungshinweise für pädagogische Innovationen, München: Oldenbourg. Preprint in PDF
- Schneider, Daniel with Paraskevi Synteta, Catherine Frété, Fabien Girardin, Stéphane Morand (2003) Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites: clear focus and fuzzy edges. ICOOL International Conference on Open and Online Learning, December 7-13, 2003, University of Mauritius. PDF.
- Schneider Daniel & Paraskevi Synteta (2005). Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites, in Senteni,A. Taurisson,A. Innovative Learning & Knowledge Communities / les communautés virtuelles: apprendre, innover et travailler ensemble", ICOOL 2003 & Colloque de Guéret 2003 selected papers, a University of Mauritius publication, under the auspices of the UNESCO, ISBN-99903-73-19-1. PDF Preprint