Project-based learning

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")

<pageby nominor="false" comments="false"/>

This article (who's most parts are taken from Paraskevi Synteta's PhD thesis proposal, 2002) provides a short introduction to project-based learning in the framework of more open-ended projects that are typical of socio-constructivist approaches. Please, see project-oriented learning for a more general introduction.

Introduction

The notion of project is central to socio-constructivism and other related activity-based approaches. A project allows learners to identify and formulate their own problems. The goals they set as well as the unexpected discoveries they will make during their interaction with the environment serve as guides (Collins et al, 1989). It is therefore important to divide scenarios into sequences and to divide problems into sub-problems so that learners perform only one task at a time and that these tasks are flexible enough in order for learners to be able achieve them whatever their basic level. Project-based learning is a model which distinguishes from traditional teaching since the focus is put on the learner and his project. Learners have the opportunity to work more autonomously and build their knowledge.

Projects as a methodology are not a new concept; in the United States pioneers were John Dewey (Dewey, 1966) and William H. Kilpatrick (Kilpatrick, 1918). “For over 100 years, educators such as John Dewey have reported on the benefits of experiential, hands-on, student-directed learning. Most teachers, knowing the value of engaging, challenging projects for students, have planned field trips, laboratory investigations, and interdisciplinary activities that enrich and extend the curriculum. "Doing projects" is a long-standing tradition in American education.” (Markham et al. 2003, 3). In Europe, some of the known researchers are Makarenko (1888-1939), Freinet (1896-1966) and the (Groupe Français d'Education Nouvelle, 1982)). In the 1990’s with the rapid growth of telematics, PBL is being revised and redefined as it is an approach that supports many of the tasks that teachers face today such as incorporating authentic assessment, infusing higher-order thinking skills, guiding students in life choices, and providing experiences that tap individual student interests and abilities.

=

=

ontext

T

s

design ideas are based on various socio-constructivist schools of thought (Bruner, 1973), but can also be found in other modern instructional theories (Ausubel, Novak and Hanesian, 1978 ; Reigeluth, 1999). We consider [[s[[iconstructivism ]] ]] understanding of learning that stresses the importance of constructing knowledge based on previous knowledge and interaction with the social environment, e.g. theories that have followed from [[c[[suctivism ]]i]]et), socio-culturalism (Vygotsky, 1962) and [[S[[u situated learning ]]a]] and Wenger, 1991). Secondly, we perceive socio-constructivism as a set of pedagogies that use strategies like project-based learning (Thomas, Mergendoller and Michaelson, 1999), [[p[[bm-based learning,]][]][uy-based learning,]][c[[eased learning ]] action learning. We call these new pedagogies « activity-based », since the students learn with interactive technology (instead of from) and since the teacher has to design, to facilitate and to monitor student activities. While each of these designs has different pedagogical objectives, we believe that all good pedagogical designs should include somewhat structured [[ped[[ogil scenarios a]] th]] the teacher's role is crucial. In this perspective, the modern teacher has to fulfill a triple role of facilitator, manager and « orchestrator » and he needs adequate supporting environments since such designs can become very complex and costly.

{{quo

{{on

Template:Re (Col}}ns, B}}wn and Newman, 1989, p. 487). Powerful pedagogical designs that aim at the development of general problem skills, deeper conceptual understanding and more applicable knowledge include, according to van Merriënboer and Pass (2003, p. 3), the following characteristics : {{quotatTemplate:Nso com}}ned complex instructional design models like [[4C/ID][[

===][[

===ion

=

Projec

Based

arning is a teaching and learning model (curriculum development and instructional approach) that emphasizes student-centered instruction by assigning projects. It allows students to work more autonomously to construct their own learning, and culminates in realistic, student-generated products. More specifically, project-based learning can be defined as follows :

1. Focus

s on th

central concepts of a discipline

1. Engag

ng lear ing experiences that involve students in complex, real-world projects through which they develop and apply skills and knowledge

1. Learn

ng that requires students to draw from many information sources and disciplines in order to solve problems

1. Learn

ng in w ich curricular outcomes can be identified up-front, but in which the outcomes of the student's learning process are neither predetermined nor fully predictable

1. Exper

ences t rough which students learn to manage and allocate resources such as time and materials (Moursu d, 2002

J. W. Thomas et al., 1999)

Rooted

at lea

it’s design of the curriculum, instruction and assessment) in various constructivist schools of thought (Perkins, 1991; Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978), constructionism (Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai & Resnick, 1996), cooperative or collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999), and generally active learning, has strong theoretical support for successful achievement. Still, we have to note that PBL is not a pure constructivist model but uses also multiple methods of instruction, among them direct, explicit, (didactic) instruction (Moursund, 1999). PBL can be found under the name of project method, project approach, knowledge in action, learning or education by project, intentional learning (Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLearn, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989), learning by doing, design experiments (Brown, 1992), to name a few.

===Main

=res

===though

BL is po

lar as an approach, it lacks from a universally accepted model or theory and one can find in literature a diversity of defining features (W. J. Thomas, 2000a). In order to capture the uniqueness of PBL and to screen out non examples of it, Synteta (2001) made the synthesis of the features described in literature (Reginald & Laferrière, 1999; W. J. Thomas, 2000b), and ended in the following: PBL emphasizes activities that

• are cent

al to curr culum,

• long-ter

(more tha
a couple of class days and up to semester), 

• interdis

iplinary,

• have a d

iving ques ion that is challenging and constructive,

• are stud

nt-centere

and 

• are base

on collab

rative or cooperative group learning,

• are inte

rated with real world issues and practices,

• have pro

uctive out omes,

• have an

mpact on “ ife skills” like self-management, group process, and problem-solving skills,

• and use cogn

tive tools, us ally technology-based (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Marx et al., 1994). According to t ese criteria, here are not PBL instances:

• the projects

that are not c ntral to curriculum but serve as a complementary practice,

• projects tha

don’t have an

intellectually challenging driving question,

• projects that

an be carried ou

with already-learned information or skills, 

• projects that

re scripted (P. illenbourg, 2002),

• projects that

ocus on simulate

and not realistic questions.

====Project vs

====m Based Lea

=

We have to clar

y here, that wi

the abbreviation of PBL, we refer to Project-Based Learning and not to Problem-Based Learning. They both have roots in constructivism, as they engage students in authentic student-centered tasks to enhance learning, and the line between them is frequently blurred, as they can be used in combination and play complementary roles, but they are not identical approaches (Camille Esch, 1998 cited in (Schneiderman, Borkowski, Alavi, & Norman, 1998)).

Project-based le rning focuses mo tly on a production model. Students start by defining the purpose of creating the end-product, identify their audience, they research the topic, design the product, do the project management, solve the problems that arise and finish the product followed by a self-evaluation and reflection (Crawford, Bellnet website, Autodesk website, Blumenfeld et al. cited in (Schneiderman et al., 1998)). So, the driving force is the end-product, but the key to success is the skills acquired during it’s production. Problem-based lear ing uses an inquir

model. Students start with a given problem, make a plan for gathering information, pose new questions and summarize their research by presenting their conclusions (Duch, Delisle, Hoffman and Ritchie, Stepian and Gallacher cited in (Schneiderman et al., 1998)). In this case, the driving force is the problem given and the success is the solution of it (Vu, Van der Vleuten, & Lacombe, 1998). 

In that sense, Pro ect-Based Learning is a broader category than the Problem-based one (Moursund, 1999), as the first includes always inquiry and might in cases address a specific problem but not the other way around.

Actors

R

====f actors a

====articular

PBL. Project-based learning is a structure that transforms teaching from "teachers telling" to "students doing". Students become active problem-solvers, decision and meaning-makers rather than passive listeners, they collaborate or cooperate forming groups, organize their activities, conduct research, solve problems, synthesize information, organize time and resources and reflect on their learning. Teachers change their role “from sage on the stage to guide on the side” and assume the role of cognitive and meta-cognitive coach (by asking, monitoring, probing, managing, group regulating, keeping moving) rather than knowledge-holder and disseminator. Project serves as the initial challenge and motivation (appealing to be explored, setting up the context of learning).

Assessment

G

Assessment

G

====ly, with its i

ovative approach to learning, PBL also requires an innovative approach to assessment, which is challenging. It requires varied and frequent assessment, including teacher assessment, peer assessment, self-assessment and reflection. “Using technTemplate:Ogy as a (H. D. Jonassen, Pec” & Wilson, 1999).

==

Activity-base

==

rative, and construct

n-based pedagogies can be implemented at three levels: (1) the micro-level, i.e. smaller pedagogical scenarios or projects which can be components for larger projects, (2) long term projects, i.e. project-based classes and (3) the general study environment favoring student initiative and community building on which we will come back later.While micro activities (lasting only over a single or a few lessons) can not reach the same goals as true project-based teaching, they nicely can complement traditional instruction and are often the only realistic alternative in today's organization of the school and university system.We now will examine particular instructional design issues, first at the level of smaller scenarios and then for larger project-oriented classes.

See also: [[project-o

ented learng for

wider discsi of different framewo]]s.

===Efficiency, effect

===ss and affordabili

=

Researchers have inve

igated the impact of

oject-based learning (and related instructional approaches) in a wide variety of educational contexts ranging from early childhood education to medical and legal education. They have generally been shown to be effective in increasing student motivation by engaging them in their own learning, in improving student problem-solving and higher order thinking skills (Stites, 1998). It promotes meta-cognition and self-regulated learning by asking students to generate their own strategies for problem definition, information gathering, data-analysis, and hypothesis-building and testing, comparing these strategies against and sharing them with other students' and mentors' strategies. Teaching with the project-based method enables students to work cooperatively with peers and mentors in a student-centered environment where learners are encouraged to explore various topics of interest. "The collaborative nature of the investigation enhances all of these valuable experiences ... as well as promotes a greater appreciation for social responsibility (Scott, 1994)". Hence, it also provides opportunities for interdisciplinary learning by engaging students in applying the content of different subject areas during the various phases of the project. PBL helps students develop real world skills like the ability to collaborate well with others, make decisions and take initiative, and face complex problems. After completing a project, if students are asked to create a self-evaluation of the project, like writing a meta-report, this enables the students to focus on their learning process and allows them to see their progress. Self-evaluation gives students a sense of accomplishment and further instills responsibility for learning. And by documenting the learning process it also makes it easy to distribute results to bigger audiences, with all the obvious advantages.

The most complete res

rch on PBL effectiven

s has been done from (W. J. Thomas, 2000b)) in the framework of his dissertation that concludes that: a) PBL is challenging to plan and enact, b) PBL depends a lot on the scaffolding provided to students to learn how to learn, c) there is indirect and direct evidence that PBL is a more popular method than other instructional strategies, as both students and teachers believe that is beneficial and effective, d) there is some evidence that PBL compared to other learning methods, enhances the quality of students’ learning, increasing their capability for applying what is learned in novel problems, e) finally, there is ample evidence that PBL is effective for teaching students complex processes like planning, communicating, problem solving and decision-making, but there is no comparison with other methods.

Unfortunately, there is

nly evidence for most o

the advantages mentioned above, given the complexity of PBL coupled with the diversity of defining features and the lack of a universally accepted model or theory. In addition, it is difficult to isolate the effects of it. Some of the reasons are, that it is applied most of the time with other strategies, limits with other similar approaches are blurred (like problem-based learning), it is implemented differently in different contexts and most of all, standard achievement tests cannot measure the higher order thinking skills developed (Stites, 1998).

Difficulties

Alt

=== PBL is conside

d t

===a profitable le

ning strategy, its implementation faces several challenges (Kehoe, Guzdial, & Turns, 1998; Means & Olson, 1995; Synteta, 2001; W. J. Thomas, 2000b) as projects are complex endeavours involving many different activities. In particular,

Student

have difficult

to:

nitiate inquiry

have coherent research questi ns,

• Define a research proj

ct; good research design and appropriate methodology,

• Direct investigations;

find resources,

• Manag

complexity and 

ime; keep deadlines, est mate time needed to do a task,

• Collaborate and give f

edback; articulating the work of others and give regular feedback. Known problems concern planning, operationalisation and monitoring (J. van der Veen, B. Collis, & Jones, 2001),

• Follow-up the project;

revise products, thing t at requires critical thinking skills and cognitive self-awareness (Schneiderman et al., 1998). In addition to the diffi ulty of setting clear go ls for various phases, students have trouble relating data, concept and theory. A teacher should orchestrate a project into several more or less sequential scenarios who in turn can be broken down to smaller phases. This will insure that learners will focus on smaller sub-problems, will do things in the right order (e.g define research goals in the beginning of the project and not in the middle).

On the other hand, teac

rs have difficulty to:

Design a PBL course; d

sign projects that suppo t learning of specific concepts and skills and sustain such highly demanding pedagogical approaches like PBL,

• Follow-up several proj

cts; monitor progress, g ve feedback and support where and when is needed and generally classroom management,

• Use technology especia

ly as a cognitive tool; ncorporating technology is challenging,

• Design assessment; ass

ssment that require stud nts to demonstrate their understanding.

===Interventions and th

e of technology

=== researchers belie e that PBL is a benefici l learning model and in order to remediate it's pitfalls have run intervention research proposing various strategies to support and improve it.

(Krajcik et al., 1998)

d (M Guzdial, 1998) use

he term “scaffolding” and (Scardamalia et al., 1989)) the term “procedural facilitation” to refer to their intervention strategies.

(Barron et al., 1998)), propose

o introduce explicit design req

rements within the project that prompt students to generate and pursue productive questions. (Blumenfeld, 1991)), propose to help teachers develop “driving questions” that will ensure that student will encounter with complex concepts and principles and develop CSILE, a computer-supported intentional learning environment to provide temporary support for young learners who were observed to face difficulties asking questions and directing their inquiries.

(Hmelo, 1998)), focuses on providin

scaffolds for collaborative group w

k and (Barron et al., 1998) on providing scaffolds for student self-assessment. (W. J. Thomas, 2000b)) in the conclu ions of his dissertation, says that here is evidence that PBL is relatively challenging to plan and enact so teachers will benefit from a supportive context for it’s administration. According to (Kehoe et al., 1998)), th

combination of supporting learning an
doing is critical to successful PBL. 

Among the intervention strategies tha

have been proposed, the use of techno

gy was central

(Blumenfeld, 1991; Means & Olson, 199

. Evaluations of K-12 instruction hav

shown strong evidence of learning gains associated with PBL plus technology (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV), 1992). (Kehoe et al., 1998) also clearly stat

that “… technology can play an import

nt role in structuring and supporting effective project-based learning …” after long experience with “Team Facilitator” (team planning through web), CaMILE (Collaborative and Multimedia Interactive Learning Environment), Reflective Learner (web environment that supports students in writing learning essays using prompts) and STABLE (SmallTalk Apprenticeship-Based Learning Environment, a web-based case library of exemplary projects). (Brown & Campione, 1996), say that technology has lso the value of making the knowledge construction process explicit, thereby helping learners to become aware of that process. (H. D. Jonassen et al., 1999), state in their mani esto that tools that meaningfully engage the learn rs should support constructivist environments and that technology-based environments can effectively support these activities. (Krajcik et al., 1994), state that technology make

the environment more authentic to students, becau

e among others the computer provides access to data and information and expands interaction and collaboration with others via networks. A long technical report (USA department of educati n, 1995) concludes that: “… some aspects of the mo el (PBL) maybe directly stimulated by technology – notably an increased level of collaboration, heterogeneity of roles, and greater complexity and authenticity in assigned tasks. Other tasks …are often reinforced by technology use. …”.

But technology-based learning environments can and should sup

rt advanced knowledge acquisition. And that can be done by pr

iding environments and thinking tools that engage constructivist conceptions of learning (Kommers, Jonassen, & Mayes, 1992). Thinking tools are technology systems or applications that extend the intellectual functionality of the learner by engaging the learner to tasks that facilitate knowledge construction (e.g. semantic network software, expert systems, databases and microworlds). Even simpler Internet tools add critical and valuable dimensio s to a PBL experience. The management issues, for a start, tha

a teacher can face as the classroom-learning manager of a networked project can be dealt with easier than the ones on an "old-fashioned, low-tech" project (in case that teachers cannot meet the students frequently). Another advantage is that the dissemination of the projects is open to bigger and different audiences. More specifically, students have the opportunity to peer, review and browse other similar projects, motivating them and supporting them in the accomplishment of their own project. Most important, the web can be used as a communications and collaboration medium to build ongoing dialogs between the project authors and their audience, especially their teachers. These “author-mentor” dialogs can be planned and organized to motivate students and establish increasingly high standards. A networked project typically involves students in distant locations cooperating to research, exchange information, and learn from one another, although the distant partners may include experts. Students may conduct research, perform experiments in their own community, and report their findings. They may pose questions to experts or exchange information with their peers. (J. van der Veen et al., 2001) focuses also on the important support that telematics (as they call them) can provide to group-based learning.

All the above advantages of a networked project are not without co t. We shouldn’t forget the disadvantage of it’s distant nature com ared to face-to-face communication. To remedy, teachers have to put special attention on details such as meeting deadlines (e.g., using reminders), regular animating the course, and finally, being ready to help and being flexible. Students on the other hand, in order to conclude their projects and enhance their learning, it is important to be able to share project results, to be able to reflect on their work, and stay in touch. In the directions of (W. J. Thomas, 2000b) for future research in PBL, we distinguished two needs, a new theory of learning and instruction t at will provide principles for guiding authentic inquiry, knowledge construction and autonomous learning and models for designing efficient and productive projects. In conclusion, for PBL success we have to focus on the following point

careful management and orchestration of instruction, multiple scaffo

ds during students inquiries, careful and continuous monitoring. Technology can help, as it supports very well features that are important in PBL, like student-autonomy, group work, scaffolding on-demand, and many others.

Scenarization

Effectiveness is not guaranteed if the teacher s

==y asks students t

do projects, to engage in writing activities, to

==rn together or at

east to profit from each other's ideas. We assume that the risk is quite high to observe that students cannot start, get lost or are otherwise unproductive. We therefore suggest to create semi-structured pedagogical scenarios that define an orchestrated sequence of learning activities. Such a scenario is often called a « script » in the literature, and in particular, in the field of Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) that Dillenbourg, Schneider and Synteta (2002) define as a story or scenario that the students and tutors have to play just in the same way as actors play a movie script. Such pedagogical scripts can become very sophisticated : for each phase, the script specifies the tasks that students have to perform, the composition of the group, the way that the task is distributed within and among the groups, the mode of interaction and the timing of phase. Phases are ordered and connected, i.e. outputs of one phase become inputs of the next phase.

Pedagogical scripts are mostly sequential, at least from the student's

rspective. However, it does not mean that these are merely instructions

hat the learners have to follow. Tasks can and should often be defined as mere goals, e.g. that at some point the teacher can ask students to hunt out and to formulate definitions of the objects they will have to study although the way they do it is left open. In other words, when designing and executing pedagogical scenarios the teacher has to respect a harmonious equilibrium between the freedom left to students that is necessary for intellectual development and motivation on one hand, and certain guiding principles on the other hand.

Scenarization of project components

Structured activity-based

===ing involves sequencing scenarios and th

efore breaking the « probl

===into parts so that the students are chal

nged to master as many tasks as they are ready to handle. From a more abstract perspective, scenarios evolve in cycles, e.g. a typical teaching/learning phase has more or less the following elements (in whatever order) :

1. Do
2. Deposit
3. Look
4. Discuss

Resources, tools and products play an imp

tant role. Eac

time 
student

oes something, there should be a product

ven s small a

a lit

le messa

) that is deposited somewhere and that can be looked at and discussed. Below is an alternative but very similar loop showing that there are variants of the same principle: Things are looked at, things are produced and discussion happens. It is the principle of information seeking, production and interaction that counts.

1. Look (discovery)
2. Discuss (interaction)
3. Do (production)
4. Deposit

sharing)

1. Feedbac

(discussion of results)

The teacher's ma ager role

s to make sure that such loops are productiv

e.g. that the st dents produce someth ng, that it is task rela ed, that t

y engage themselves in meta-reflection (look critically a

the

r own work) and that they discuss and share with others. The teacher'

facilitator role is to help students with their

task , e.g. elp them to select resources and tools, explain difficult con epts and procedures, "debug" when they are stuck etc. The te cher's orches rator role is to implement (or most frequently a so to creat ) the scenarios or scripts as they are also calle . This means basically to define a scenario as a sequence of clearly ident fiable phases in a way that learners focus on a smaller amou t of ta ks at the same time and that these tasks are not too difficul

to 

e solved at some point.

Let's have a look at a simple examp e. Imagi e that for a given purpose,

udents need references for a projec . We can turn this into a pedagogical

ctivity with a scenario that includes the following steps:

1. The teacher introduces the theme, gives clues and asks students to consi

er the different aspects of the subject (Discuss).

1. Students search the

eb with various search engines and bookmark the lin s they find interesting (Look, Deposit).

1. Students then try to work out

certain amount of categories and sub-cat

gories for this theme (Look, Do, Deposit).

1. The results are put in commo

and a hierarchy is worked out (Look, Do, D

scuss).

1. The approved categories are entered in a common space (e.g. the

classroo

wall, a sheet of paper or an electronic links management system) (Deposit

.

1. Students classify, enter and describe their links (Do, Deposit).
2. Teac

er provides an evaluation (Discuss).

More such scenarios are sugg sted f r example in the [http://tecfa.unige.

/proj/seed/catalog TECFA SEE

Catalog] in terms of sc[narios (activities)

its constituant elementary activities]and supporting [echnology. As we said before, scenarios should not be "over-scripted", the student should in general be its own master of the tasks and tasks should have some flavor of authenticity. Along similar lines, the teacher should not directly interfere with student's products, but only give feedback and evaluation and let the student fix things himself. Defining a scenario therefore is a workflow design problem, but with the idea that pedagogical workflows are different from the ones in industry. In industry the goal is the product, in education the goal is apprenticeship, i.e. what the student has learnt from performing a set of activities

Global Story-boards

Global story boards are quite different acco

=== to level of education,

eld, total time, duration, etc.

Here is one

===ible blueprint of the sc

ario the students are confronte

with:

1. Familiarization with the project(s) content
2. Familiarization wit

pedag gical goals (including content area(s), metho ology-related know-how, high r-order skills, ...)

1. Familiarization with (

ough) timeline (i.e. deadlines for audits, sharin

activities)

1. Exploration/discussion of subjects and team-building
   • At

he same time the working environment is introduced.

1. Definition of

individual (or grou ) projects including planning.

1. • This

usually require

at least 3 iterations

1. Audits and sharing activi

ies, fo

example:

1. • students have to present

iterature reviews at the st rt and exchange l nks

1. • constitution of a com

on dictionary

1. • make comments to other proje

ts

Presentation of results

1. Evaluation

Global problem-based learning mode

• [[C3MS project-base

learning mo

l]]

• [[Moursund project-based lea

ni

mel

== The role of Tools ==

s]] e [[ove example shows, most activ

y-se

==structive and collabo

ti]] pegogies do not necessarily need any sp

==tools, but work can b

made more efficient (after some adaptation period) and certainly more powerful by adopting some support technology. Walls in a classroom run out of space, paper is lost and collaboration within the classroom is under heavy time constraints and "home work" lacks the sort of support that classroom activities have. Content needs to managed, knowledge exchange must be organized, discussion tools must favor exchange of arguments, projects must run, and generated knowledge must be managed.

What kinds of productions could typically happen in such a workflow appro

h?

1. Gathering and distribution of information : teachers and learners sh

e esources and the activities are designed to help them gather information a d make it available to all.

1. Creation of collaborative documents : here the students can write defini

ions, analyze cases, solve problems, write documents and create illustrate

documents together around specific themes. 

1. Discussion and comments about the productions : learners identify togeth

r facts, principles and concepts and clarify complex ideas. They formulate hypotheses and plan solutions, make links between ideas, compare different points of view, argue, evaluate... ?

1. Project management related activities : learners can decide work plans,

hare tasks and form groups, decide a schedule and so forth. Teachers can d stribute and regulate tasks.

Internet technology supports most open-ended, creative and active pedagog

s, as long as students can also be producers (not just readers and exerci

button pushers). While there is an interesting number of enabling software and while activity-based (e.g. project or problem-based) scenarios are quite popular (Reigeluth, 1999 ; Wilson and Lowry 2001), they are not supported by the same number of technologies as the scenarios inspired by more traditional instructional design are. Exceptions like the Knowledge Forum Systeare rare. Besides coonly used tools like HTML ges and forums,here est quite a number ofnteresting tools like partipatory contentanagement systems (e.g. Weblogs), and collaborative hypertexts in various forms (e.g. Wikis). However, we like to push one step further, i.e. provide teacherwith fairly integrated configurable platform of tools. Technical requirentsor active and rich pedagogies are not extremely demanding, but  interesting results could already be obtained by providing the following sort of functionalities :

1. Access to rich information sources (not just stream-lined e-learning bl

ks) by various means, e.g. browsing, searching by categories or popularit

searching by keywords.

1. Affordable interaction with various types of information contents (inclu

ing annotation).

1. Rich interactions between actors, that are facilitated

y awareness mech nisms (who did what, what is new, etc.)

1. Simple integration of these acti

ities through a « place ».

Activity-ba ed pedagogies assign a better diverse role to documents used.

arners gene ally select by themselves the documents they need from a larger

hoice (which includes the whole Internet). More importantly, they actively participate in the production of documents, some of which can be reused later on. Ideally, they also should be allowed to annotate documents, i.e. enrich them by their own experience. Writing in this perspective concerns producing short texts in various genres (questions, arguments, links, definitions, etc.). These learner productions plus interactions are meant to provoke various meta-cognitive mechanisms beneficial to learning e.g. conceptual change and deeper understanding (Klein 1999). In general terms, activity-based teaching needs mainly a computer as a facilitating structure, a thinking, working and communication tool instead of a content transmission device. Accordingly, most student and teacher activities should be supported by computational tools and lead to new « contents ». Within this perspective we can see that activities and roles are defined in a collaborative expressive digital media framework.

• See: [[MS as a way to implement this sort of design. We a]]ocate either

[Portal[[(othe C3MS kind) or a combination of web 2.0 application

[see th[[li of b 2.applications]], [[personal arning vironment]]s,[[[webto]][[ etc.)

her ols:

• [htt]]//[[testar.4tchers.o/ NoteSta]] As[[st stu][[ts wit

collecting g

up[not]] a[[ citations for papers.

• [htt]]//pchecklt.4teac

rs.org/ PBL

ec[List]

• [http://thinktank.4teac

er[.org/ Think Tank] is designed to help students (] ad[s 3-8) develop a Resea ch[Organizer (a lis] of topics and subtopics) for re or[s and projects

• Project Foundry A project-based learning ma

ag[ment tool for students and teachers

The ge]eral study environment

T e [ommunity factor is particularly imp

==nt in open and distance learning

tuations. As formulated by e-learning pr

==tioner Gilroy (2001) « E-learning

hould be first and foremost about creating a social space that must be managed for the teaching and learning needs of the particular group of people inhabiting that space ». While a large part of our knowledge comes indeed from formally planned learning scenarios, people learn a lot from informal exchange with fellow learners, with professors, experts, i.e. from exchange within tightly or loosely defined communities (Lave and Wenger, 1991).

It is very impoant that teaching should generate ehusiasm, enhance concentr

ion and favor cativity, which are very distinct, b somehow interconnected p

nomena. Rieber Smith and Noah (1998) convincingly argue that learning process itself -and not just the result- should be interesting, if one seeks higher motivation among learners. « Serious play » or « hard fun » are intense learning situations where learners are investing a lot of « energy » and time, that provide equally intensive pleasure at certain moments which have been identified as «  flow » or « optimal experience » by Csikszentmihalyi

According to Felan, Csikszentmihal and Gardner (1994), creativity should be studi

and therefore filitated by the teher at three differenlevels : ( the social fiel

e.g. a network of people who provide cognitive and affectisupport, struction, evaluation, recognition, etc. ; (2) the domain (symbol systems of knowledge) ; and (3) the individual, i.e. intellectual traits, personal traits and cognitive structures. It is clear that education cannot influence all variables, but pedagogical design certainly can have a positive influence on individual dispositions that already exist. It can act upon conditions, i.e. on educational tasks and the general learning environment like the « class spirit » with the help of specially designed technology that we will introduce later on. By exposing students to open-ended, challenging, authentic and partly self-defined projects on one hand and by providing scaffolding and support on the other hand, the teacher does create situations where individual traits can be exposed and developed.

By taking into accout input from community of practice, flow theory, reativity theory etc. we can dene a few desiderata f tdesign of rt[[s as holisti

learning environ]]nts:

First, thportal should be a ri iormation spe r « domain support » and it shld e

ourage students to add their own contribution. Such a space also encourages exploration. The

pical tools used 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. In our experience, it has been shown that students are more likely 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. In addition, we developed a tool that allows to list and display in detail all student productions throughout the various tools. A successful teaching by projects pedagogy needs to provide strong emotional support and it is therefore important to encourage spontaneous, playful interaction and corners for humor that w ll augment quality of on-line life and contribute to class spirit. Tools like the shoutbox or a little quotation box can do wonders. Last, but not least, a personal Weblog (diary) can stimulate meta-reflection, in particular if the teacher requires that stents wte an entry after the completion of each activity.

Our observations lead us to concde thapedagogical portals should also be designed in the

irit of true virtual environments that have drawn a lot of attention in the last decade. A pe

gogical virtual environment (VE) consists in a constructed virtual information space built with the appropriate tools as outlined above. A virtual environment (VE) is also a social space, where pedagogical interactions take place.

Example cases of project-based learning

• High school project
• [[Junior High school

==ect]]

• Elementary school project

== R

e[[nces ==

• Ausubel,]]

,[[. Novak and H. Hane

== (1]] )Educational Psychology :

==it

e[[iew, 2n

Edition, N]] Yk, Holt, Rinehart and Wins .* Bruner, J. (1973). Goin

==nd the Informa

on Given, New York, Norton.

• Class, Barbara

Mireille Bétrancourt (2004) Un portail en éducation à distance : vers que

e ergonomie pédag

ique ? / Ergonomics, community portal and distance learning : some pedagogica

issues", Actes Ergo'IA 2004 [1]

• Collins, A., J.S. Brown and S.E. Newman (1989). « Cognitive apprenticeship : Teaching the c[a]t

of reading, writing, and mathematics », in L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruct[on

Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 453-494.

• Dillenbourg, P., D. Schneider and V. Synteta (2002). « Virtual learning environments », in Procee

ngs of The 3rd Congress on Information and Communication Technologies in Education, Rhodes, Kastaniot

Editions, p. 3-18.

• Feldman, D.H., M. Csikszentmihalyi and H. Gardner (1994). Changing The World, A Framework for the S

dy of Creativity, Westport, Praeger.

• Häkkinen, P. (2002), Internet-based learning environments for

roject-enhanced science learning,

urnal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume 18 Page 233 - June 2002, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2002.t

-1-00230.x

• Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991). Situated Learning : Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, U

Cambridge University Press. 

• Laffey,James, Tupper,Thomas, Musser,Dale, Wedman,John, A computer-med

ted support system for projec

based learning, Educational Technology Research and Development, 46, 1, 3/18/1998, Pages 73-86, [http:

dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299830, DOI 10.1007/BF02299830] (Access restricted)

• Land,Susan, Greene,Barbara, (2[00) Project-based learning with the world wide web: A qualit]tiTemplate:S

of resource integration, Educat[onal Technology Research and Development, 48, 1, 3/28/2000, PagTemplate:4

, DOI 10.1007/BF02313485 (Access restricted)

• Mergendoller, John R. and John[W. Thomas, Managing Project Based Learning: Principles from ]heTemplate:Ie

2003) , The Buck Institute for E[ucation, PDF

d, David (2002) Project-based learning: Us[ng Information Technology, 2nd edition, ISTE. ISBN]

56484-196-0

• Perrenoud, Philippe, Apprendre à l\[2019école à travers des projets : pourquoi ? commen

? Educateur

2002, n° 14, pp. 6-11 [http://www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/teachers/perrenoud/php_main/php_2002/2002_30.html H

L]

• Reigeluth, C.M. (1[99) (Ed.). Instructional-Design Theories and Models : A New Paradigm of Instructiona]

heory, Mahwah, NJ, L[wrence Erlbaum Associates. Note: It seems that a new volume is under preparation ([[U

r:DSchneider|DSchneider]] 12:45, 13 May 2006 (MEST)).

• Rieber, L.P., L. Smith and D. Noah (1998). « Tvalue of serious play », ucational Technology, 38(6),

. 29-37. [[fplay.html HTML

• Thomas,]]. W., Mergendoller, J.R., &

chaelson,[A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle]

d high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Insti[ute for Education.

• Markham, Thom et al. (2003), Proj

t Based Learning Handbook, Buck Institute for Education, ISBN 09740

304

• Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. [http://www.bobpearlman.org/Bes

rac

ces/PBL_Research.pdf PDF] - [df PDF - [http://web.archive.org/w

/20030812124529/www.k12r]for[.org/foundation/pbl/research/ HTML Summary][

• Sch]eid[r, Daniel. (2005) "Gestaltung kollektiver und kooperat[ver Lernumgebungen" in Euler & Seufert]

ds.), E-L[arning in Hochschulen und Bildungszentren. Gestaltungshinweise für pädagogische Innovationen, Münc

n: Oldenbourg. Preprint in PDF

• Schneider, Daniel with[Paraskevi Synteta, Catherine Frété, Fabien Girardin, Stéphane Morand (2003) Conceptio]

nd implementation of ric[ pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites: clear focus and fuzzy edges. I

OL International Conference on Open and Online Learning, December 7-13, 2003, University of Mauritius. PDF.

• Schneider Daniel & Paraskevi Synteta (2[05). Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios thro]g

collaborative portal sites, in Senteni,A.[Taurisson,A. Innovative Learning & Knowledge Communities / les communaut

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

• van Merriënboer, J.G. and F. [ass (2003). « Powerful learning and the many faces of instructional design : Toward]

framework for the design of powe[ful learning environments », in E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle and J.G. va

Merriënboer (Eds), Powerful Learning Environments : Unraveling Basic Components and Dimensions, Amsterdam, Pergamon, p. 3-20.

• Wilson, B. and M. Lowry (2001). « Constructivist learning on the Web », in L. Burge (Ed.), Learning Technologies : Ref

ctive and Strategic Thinking, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. [http://ceo.c

enver.edu/~brent_wilson/WebLearning.html]

Notes

This is more or less copy/paste text from Schneider & Sy[teta (2005 and our TecfaSeed Catalog. A better version]

== be wri ten once we are done with describing other project-orien[ed / activity-based designs. [[User:DSchneider|DSchneid

== 12:45, 13 May 2006 (MEST) [[Category:Pedagogic strategs theories]] [[Category:Pro

-oriented instructional design mo [[] [[Category:Instructionale modelsissage pa]] jet]] [[]]

[[]]]] [[] [[]] [[]]

[[]] [[]]]] [[]]

[[]]