investigating teachers’ expectations for using · web viewthe constructivist theory of learning...

Investigating Teachers’ Expectations For UsingTelecollaborative Project Work

byBarry S. Kramer

Presented to the Graduate and Research Committeeof Lehigh University

in Candidacy for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

InLearning Science and Technology

Lehigh UniversityMay 15, 2009

Copyright by Barry S. KramerMay 15, 2009

ii

Approved and recommended for acceptance as a dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

__________________________ Date __________________________Dissertation Advisor

__________________________ Accepted Date

Committee Members:

__________________________Judith A. Duffield

__________________________M. J. Bishop

__________________________Amanda Kloo

__________________________Margaret Riel

iii

Acknowledgements

In 1988, I first became aware of the work of Dr. Margaret Riel and the Learning

Circles project. My initial participation in Learning Circles completely changed my

educational career, the way I viewed instruction, and the possibilities that technology

could provide to educate children. It was also Dr. Riel who encouraged and supported me

to pursue a higher degree and become serious with my interest in telecollaborative project

work. I can truly say that I value every conversation, idea, suggestion, and words of

encouragement she has ever provided me. It is because of her belief in me that I have

arrived at this point. It is to her that I dedicate this work.

I have worked with Dr. Judy Duffield, the chair of my study, for the past three

years. She has shown patience, understanding, and a willingness to always listen when I

needed it. She always kept me on course and helped me to complete this research in a

way that allowed the story to emerge. I am indebted to her for her leadership and

guidance. I am also indebted to my committee members – Dr. M. J. Bishop and Dr.

Amanda Kloo who continually provided me with guidance, insightful comments,

honesty, encouragement, and crucial direction.

This study centers on a community of teachers who every year dedicate their time,

energy, and expertise to bring the world of telecollaborative project work to their

students. Often they venture into the unknown and outside their area of comfort to bring

this new experience to their students in the hope of enriching their lives and bringing the

world closer together. This study was made possible because of their willingness to allow

me to enter into their world and to share their thoughts, successes, frustrations, and ideas.

iv

I am grateful to the people at Lehigh University and my place of employment,

Franklin Township School, who have supported me through my study from the

beginning. I am especially thankful to Dr. Andrew Walker and Dr. Jennifer Brill for your

initial guidance and wisdom.

Any acknowledgement would be incomplete without the important mention of

two special family members who have supported my work from the beginning. My

fiancée, Liping Zhang, has consistently provided me with the freedom and support

needed to complete this work. Her unending encouragement and commitment has never

ceased through this entire process. Lastly, a special thank you to my daughter, Elizabeth

Kramer, who always inspires me and reminds me that because of youth such as her, the

future is in good hands.

v

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................2

Background to the Study.................................................................................................2Telecollaborative Project Work...................................................................................2

Telecollaboration.....................................................................................................2Project-based Learning............................................................................................3Support For Telecollaborative Project Work...........................................................5Concerns and Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work..................................7Learning Circles: An Example of Telecollaborative Project Work.........................9

Statement of Problem....................................................................................................11The Purpose of the Study...............................................................................................13Research Questions........................................................................................................14Significance of the Study...............................................................................................15Definition of Terms.......................................................................................................16Organization of Chapters...............................................................................................17

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................18

The Foundations of Telecollaboration...........................................................................18Constructivist Theory of Learning.............................................................................19Constructivist Learning Environments......................................................................21Project-based Learning..............................................................................................23Collaborative Learning..............................................................................................26

The Role of Expectations.......................................................................................29What a Telecollaborative Experience Is Like?..............................................................30

Global Learning Communities..................................................................................31Constructivist Principles in Online Learning Communities..................................32

Telecollaboration.......................................................................................................34Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities......................................................38

Interpersonal Exchanges........................................................................................38Information Collection and Analysis.....................................................................39Problem Solving....................................................................................................40

Connection Between Telecollaboration and Project-based Learning........................41Current Support For Telecollaborative Project Work...............................................42Learning Circles.........................................................................................................44

The Phases of a Learning Circle............................................................................44What Are Teachers Expecting?.....................................................................................49

ICT Use in Education................................................................................................49Assessing a Teacher’s Level of Technology Integration.......................................50Barriers to Technology Integration........................................................................52

The Function of ICT in Telecollaborative Project Work...........................................53Teacher Expectations for Telecollaborative Project Work........................................55

vi

Reasons for Students and Teachers To Engage in Telecollaborative Project Work. 57Project-based Learning..........................................................................................57ICT Use..................................................................................................................58Telecollaborative Project-based Learning.............................................................59

Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work...........................................................64Ethnographic Analysis of Telecollaborative Project Work...........................................67

CHAPTER 3: METHOD...................................................................................................69

Research Purpose and Questions...................................................................................69Research Design and Method........................................................................................70Research Focus and Paradigm.......................................................................................73Data Collection..............................................................................................................74

Research Site and Participants...................................................................................74Role of the Researcher...............................................................................................78Sources of Data..........................................................................................................79

Surveys..................................................................................................................80Interviews..............................................................................................................81Message Exchanges...............................................................................................82

Data Analysis.................................................................................................................84Data Collection Cycle....................................................................................................85Pilot Study.....................................................................................................................90

Testing of Surveys.....................................................................................................91Testing of the Interview Process................................................................................92Testing the Message Analysis Process......................................................................93

Validity and Trustworthiness of the Data......................................................................95Trustworthiness..........................................................................................................95

Credibility..............................................................................................................95Transferability........................................................................................................96Dependability.........................................................................................................97Confirmability........................................................................................................97

Authenticity Criteria......................................................................................................98

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY...................................................................101

Introduction..................................................................................................................101Survey Sequence and Dates.........................................................................................101Survey Results.............................................................................................................102

Pre-Survey Responses.............................................................................................102The Participants.......................................................................................................103Background Information..........................................................................................108Open-ended Questions.............................................................................................112

Question 1............................................................................................................112Question 2............................................................................................................114Question 3............................................................................................................115Additional Responses..........................................................................................117

Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey.............................................117Changing Expectations........................................................................................119Realization of Expectations.................................................................................124

vii

Learning Circles Meeting Expectations...............................................................126Meeting Student Expectations.............................................................................127Meeting Teacher Expectations............................................................................130Meeting Overall Expectations.............................................................................134Expectations.........................................................................................................140The Learning Circle Process................................................................................142Future Participation.............................................................................................144Additional Responses..........................................................................................147

CHAPTER 5: THE CASE STUDY EXPERIENCE.......................................................152

Background Information..............................................................................................152Case Study Group....................................................................................................152

Profiles of Case Study Participants..............................................................................156Teacher A.................................................................................................................156Teacher B.................................................................................................................158Teacher C.................................................................................................................160Teacher D.................................................................................................................161Teacher E.................................................................................................................162Teacher F.................................................................................................................163Teacher G.................................................................................................................165

Learning Circles Phases...............................................................................................166Getting Ready for Learning Circles.........................................................................166Opening the Learning Circle...................................................................................168Planning Student Projects........................................................................................172Exchanging Student Work.......................................................................................176Organizing the Circle Publication...........................................................................184Closing the Learning Circle.....................................................................................189

Behavior of the Participants.........................................................................................192Assessment of Experience...........................................................................................197

Telecollaborative Project Work...............................................................................197Project-based Learning........................................................................................197Collaboration.......................................................................................................200Types of Projects.................................................................................................202Completion of Projects........................................................................................203

How the Participants Described Their Experience..................................................205

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY.............................................................212

Introduction and Organization.....................................................................................212Statement of Purpose...................................................................................................212Summary and Discussion of the Findings...................................................................212

Teacher Expectations: Research Question 1:..........................................................213Realization of Expectations: Related Question 1A.................................................214Student and Teacher Expectations: Related Question 1B.......................................218Teacher Recommendations for Improving the Process: Research Question 1C.....223Experiences That Affect Expectations and Participation: Research Question 2.....228Influences on Future Participation: Research Question 3........................................237

Implications for Practice..............................................................................................239

viii

Limitations of the Study..............................................................................................246Suggestions for Further Research................................................................................247A Final Reflection........................................................................................................251

REFERENCES................................................................................................................254

APPENDIX A: iEARN Learning Circles Registration Site............................................281

APPENDIX B: Consent Email for Surveys.....................................................................282

APPENDIX C: Pre-Survey..............................................................................................284

APPENDIX D: Interim Survey.......................................................................................292

APPENDIX E: Post Survey.............................................................................................298

APPENDIX F: Post Survey: Telecollaborative Project Work........................................300

APPENDIX G: Consent Email for Case Study...............................................................304

APPENDIX H: Interview Protocol for Case Studies......................................................306

APPENDIX I: Participant Reconfirmation Message.......................................................308

APPENDIX J: Circle News 1..........................................................................................311

APPENDIX K: Class Survey Template..........................................................................313

APPENDIX L: Circle News 2.........................................................................................315

APPENDIX M: Circle News 3........................................................................................317

APPENDIX N: Project Idea Template............................................................................319

APPENDIX O: Circle News 4.........................................................................................320

APPENDIX P: Circle News 5.........................................................................................322

APPENDIX Q: Circle News 6.........................................................................................324

APPENDIX R: Circle News 7.........................................................................................327

VITA: Barry S. Kramer...................................................................................................330

ix

Tables

Number Page

Table 1. Characteristics of Collaborative and Cooperative Learning............................27

Table 2. Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities............................................37

Table 3. Major Phases of the Learning Circles Project.................................................45

Table 4. Learning Circle Age Levels and Project Choices............................................76

Table 5. Actual Projects for the September 2008 Session of Learning Circles.............77

Table 6. Data Collection and Analysis Cycle................................................................86

Table 7. Analysis Cycle.................................................................................................88

Table 8. Learning Circles Phases, Surveys, Dates, and Week Numbers.....................102

Table 9. Location of Participants.................................................................................103

Table 10. Type of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked........................105

Table 11. Multiple Configurations of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked..........................................................................................................105

Table 12. How Teachers Integrate Technology in the Classroom.................................107

Table 13. Years of Experience with Telecollaborative Project Work, ICT, and Project-based Learning Methodologies......................................................................109

Table 14. Use of Project Work With Technology.........................................................111

Table 15. Open-ended Question 1.................................................................................113

Table 16:. Open-ended Question 2.................................................................................115

Table 17. Open-ended Question 3.................................................................................116

Table 18. Changing Expectations..................................................................................120

Table 19. How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey............................................................................................................121

x

Table 20. How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey 1, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey............................................................................................................125

Table 21. Most Important Outcome Achieved in the Classroom As a Result of Learning Circles: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey......................129

Table 22. Most Important Area of Personal Growth That a Teacher Experienced: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey................................................133

Table 23. Progress of Learning Circle Experience: Interim Survey I and Interim Survey II.....................................................................................................................136

Table 24. Student Expectations for Learning Circles....................................................140

Table 25. Personal Expectations for Learning Circles..................................................141

Table 26. The Phase of Learning Circles That Best Helped the Participants to Experience Their Expectations: Post Survey.................................................143

Table 27. Case Study Participant Information...............................................................154

Table 28. Comparison of Large Group and Case Study Group.....................................155

Table 29. Getting Ready Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008).......................................................................................................................167

Table 30. Opening the Circle Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008).............................................................................................................168

Table 31. Planning the Projects Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008).............................................................................................................173

Table 32. Exchanging Student Work Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)................................................................................................177

Table 33. Project Ideas for the PPE1 Circle..................................................................180

Table 34. Organizing the Circle Publication from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)................................................................................................185

Table 35. Closing the Learning Circle from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008).............................................................................................................190

Table 36. Number of Messages Posted by Each Participant.........................................192

Table 37. Project-based Learning Profile Scores...........................................................199

xi

Figures

Number Page

Figure 1. The Levels of Organization of iEARN Project Work......................................71

Figure 2. Messages Posted Week-by-Week..................................................................195

xiii

Telecollaborative Project Work

ABSTRACT

Telecollaborative project work for students in a kindergarten through 12th grade

school setting is an innovative teaching practice that is promoted and supported by

various organizations and Internet Websites. Each year teachers from around the world

involve their students in these projects, while other teachers abandon the practice after

one or a few experiences.

The purpose of this research is to provide users of telecollaborative project work

with strategies and ideas to make the practice an educationally stronger experience for all

involved. During their participation in a project called Learning Circles, a group of

teachers were investigated as a whole and through a small case study to understand what

they were expecting and the role these expectations played in teachers assessing their

own experience. Interviews, messages, surveys, and documents were analyzed to

determine if educators actually realized the expectations that drew them to use

telecollaborative project work; the benefits teachers found for themselves and their

students; strategies that could be used to improve the process; the influence of teacher’s

level of technology integration, project-based learning, collaboration, obstacles, enablers;

and the extent to which teacher’s expectations affected their plans to enroll in future

projects.

Major findings revealed that most teachers did realize their expectations for their

students and themselves, but encountered many challenges and obstacles through their

experience. Teachers provided many suggestions for improving the process and identified

new collaborative models that could be used to promote greater success for future

telecollaborative project work.

1


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study


Telecollaborative project work is a term that has developed to describe online

student project work that combines the use of telecollaboration and some form of a

project-based activity (Harris, 1998; Riel, 1992b; Rogers, et al., 1990). Reports and

studies have identified telecollaborative project work as an innovative teaching practice

and a powerful methodology for promoting learning (Andersen, 2002; Moursund &

Smith, 2000). Various organizations and Internet sites such as Global SchoolNet,

International Education and Resource Network (iEARN), Schools Online, Oracle

Education Foundation’s Think.com, International E-Mail Classroom Connections

(IECC), ePals, and KidLink support this practice and provide platforms for K-12 schools

to accomplish student project work. Organizations such as the Buck Institute, the George

Lucas Educational Foundation, and UNESCO continue to fund research and support the

use of telecollaboration and project-based learning in education (The George Lucas

Educational Foundation, 2005; Markham, Larmer, & Ravit, 2003; Resta, 2002).

2


Telecollaboration

Telecollaboration is best understood as a type of activity that occurs when

students use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to work collaboratively

on projects (Harris, 1998). The use of online collaboration allows for students and

teachers to utilize technology tools to construct learning strategies that were not possible

before the advancement of telecommunication technology into the classroom (O’Neil &

Perez, 2003). The power of telecollaboration is that it facilitates the process by which

students may work with other students and adults outside the confines of the classroom

walls. It also helps facilitate students’ ability to create and present projects that can be

shared with the local and world community (Schultz-Zander, Butcher, & Dalmer, 2002).

Even though the term telecollaboration does not automatically imply the use of a

project-based learning methodology, many forms of project-based learning do utilize

some form of telecollaboration. This occurs because many forms of project-based

learning have a clearly defined use of collaboration and frequently use some form of ICT

(Moursund, 2003). When the term telecollaborative project work is used in this research

it will refer to teaching methodologies that do combine the use of telecollaboration and

project-based learning.

Project-based Learning

Project-based learning is an instructional model that “engages students in learning

knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex,

authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks” (Markham, et al., 2003, p.

3). Students are encouraged “to solve challenging problems that are authentic,

curriculum-based, and often interdisciplinary” (Solomon, 2003, p. 1). Project-based

3


learning activities focus on “driving” questions or problems that require students to

engage in activities that promote the construction of knowledge (Thomas, 2000). Two

major elements of this methodology are the use of student collaboration and teamwork

and the emphasis on completing final projects that are realistic and relevant outside the

classroom (Howard, 2002).

Project-based learning should not be confused with problem-based learning. Even

though there are some similarities such as the fact that both are authentic, constructivist

approaches to learning, they are not identical approaches (Esch, 1998). Project-based

learning tends to be associated with Kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms.

Problem-based learning is also used in K-12 classrooms, but has its origins in medical

field training (Ryan & Koschmann, 1994). In practice, it is likely that the difference

between project-based learning and problem-based learning is frequently blurred and that

the two can play complementary roles in combination with each other (Esch, 1998). The

differences between the two approaches may lie more in the goals of the learning as well

as the assessment and the final products. In a project-based learning approach, the end

product is the organizing center of the project and drives the planning, production, and

evaluation process (Chard, 1992; Katz & Chard, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In a

problem-based learning approach, the end process is generally more summative. The

planning, research, and exchange of material (rather than the end product) are the primary

focus of the learning process (Duch, 1995).

A major factor that motivates students to engage in project-based learning is

having the opportunity to share their findings in presentations to their peers and

community (The George Lucas Educational Foundation, 2005). The applications of

4


project-based learning in the K-12 classroom are diverse, ranging from elementary grade

projects (Leung, 2002), laptop initiatives in the area of geography (Grant & Branch,

2005), middle level science (Rivet & Krajcik, 2004), computer mediated communication

tools in high school (Lang, Peer, & Divaharan, 2005), and as a means of technology

integration for pre-service teachers (Gubacs, 2004).

Support For Telecollaborative Project Work

A review of the literature that supports the use of telecollaborative project work

can be divided into three areas. The first section shows that there have been summative

investigations that have identified the practice as an innovative teaching practice. The last

two relate to the benefits for students who participate in projects and teachers who

facilitate student projects. These are described in detail below.

Innovation. One category of investigation has looked at telecollaborative project

work as a form of adoption of innovation. In a summative examination of technology-

enriched instructional innovations and learning environments, Anderson (2002) identified

the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning as an innovative classroom

practice. Means and Olsen (1995) assessed innovative ways to incorporate constructivist

methods into teaching and identified telecollaborative project work as a methodology of

great promise. A report by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and

Technology (1997) presented the use of ICT, collaboration, and project-based learning in

a constructivist environment as being a desirable use of educational technology.

Moursund, Bielefeldt, and Underwood (1997) advocated the increased use of information

technologies in project-based learning as an “excellent vehicle for helping students to

learn how to carry out authentic, multidisciplinary tasks in which they budget their time,

5


make effective use of limited resources, and work with other people” (p. 63). Generally,

researchers appear to suggest that telecollaborative project work is innovative because it

is an authentic, constructivist teaching methodology that uses educational technology to

promote student learning (Harris, 1998).

Student Benefits. Researchers have found several benefits for students working on

telecollaborative project work as well. For example, Cifuentes, Murphy, and Davis

(1998) found that when high school classrooms collaborated using the Internet, students

demonstrated an increase in self-esteem, academic achievement, and multicultural

understanding. Cifuentes et al. also found that students grew personally and intellectually,

felt empowered to achieve goals, became comfortable with technology, provided and/or

received mentorship, and learned from each other. Gragert (2000) contended that,

regardless of the age level, students were more motivated to learn in general when

collaborative online project work was used as part of a classroom program. He also

summarized teacher testimonials, concluding that online collaborative project work

heightens student interests in subject content, language skills, motivation, and

opportunities for action from learning. Schulz-Zander et al. (2002) concluded from their

research in student cooperation that problem-oriented learning facilitated by ICT can

serve as a foundation to help students in all levels of schooling to develop skills in

teaching each other, functioning as a learning community, and collaborating in joint

partnerships with other schools.

Teacher Benefits. A third category of research interest looks at how educators

benefit from their facilitation of student project work in an online environment. Rogers,

et al. (1990) focusing on the role of the educator in telecollaborative learning observed

6


that just as it is common for teachers to approach telecollaborative project work with

expectations for their students, they also bring expectations for themselves. McGee

(1998) looked at the far reaching effects of telecollaborative project work and found that

teachers find both expected benefits as well as some unanticipated, but beneficial

consequences of their participation. Investigating the learning teachers acquire working

with students on K-12 telementoring projects, McGee found that teachers develop online

relationships with other teachers that allow them to share ideas and examine their

teaching practices. An assessment of teacher professional development by the U. S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1995) found evidence that

telecommunications was an effective tool for developing professional learning

communities that allowed teachers to reflect on their practices and learn from other

teachers. Riel and Fulton (2001) analyzed the possibilities for creating online learning

communities for the purpose of professional development. They suggested information

technologies greatly facilitate the development of a collaborative community of learners

who can reflect on their teaching practices, share their expertise, and “build a common

understanding of new instructional approaches, standards, and curriculum” (Riel &

Fulton, 2001, p. 2). While investigating the establishment of a comprehensive

professional development program for educators, Garcia (2005) found that online

learning communities using ICT have the potential to facilitate teamwork, learning from

each other, and knowledge sharing.

Concerns and Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work

Critics, researchers, and even proponents have expressed criticisms and concerns

related to the use of ICT and telecollaboration in the classroom (Becker, 1998; Cuban,

7


2001; Wells, 2006). These criticisms seem to focus on the three areas: the unique

attributes of telecollaboration, low usage, and the apparent silence in the literature

regarding its practice.

Unique Attributes. The most frequent criticism of telecollaborative project work is

tied to larger concerns regarding whether the use of technology in education enhances

student learning beyond conventional teaching methods and materials (Clark, 2001;

Cuban, 2001; Kozma, 1994). These same criticisms have been also directed at the use of

online project work and telecollaboration (Fabos & Young, 1999). Even though the use

of telecollaborative project work has been shown to enhance student success by

improving self-esteem, academic achievement, multicultural understanding, motivation,

and problem solving skills (Cifuentes et al., 1998; Gragert, 2000; Schulz-Zander et al.,

2002), critics have charged that these same skills might also be developed using less

expensive and more educationally efficient means (Clark, 2001; Cuban, 2001).

Low Usage. Other major concerns center on how teachers use ICT and on the lack

of opportunities students actually have to use ICT to work collaboratively. In a study of

how teachers integrate the Internet in their classroom for instructional purposes, Becker

(1998) discovered that teachers most frequently have students use computers and the

Internet as an online library for research. Findings from a major study by the National

Center for Education Statistics (2000) indicated that student collaboration using ICT

came in as the lowest category at 7% when teachers in public schools were asked how

they use computers. More recently, Kozma (2003) surveyed ICT use within innovative,

technology-rich school settings and found that, even within a system where the use of

8


technology for project work was promoted, student project collaboration was only used

17% of the time.

Silence in the Literature. Another major concern regarding the use of

telecollaborative project work is that there is an apparent absence of research regarding

the use of ICT for collaborative online projects in the literature. Wells (2006) has

identified that there is a noticeable “silence” in the literature and that even though there

appears to be an abundance of examples of project work available to view on the Internet,

this appears to be “invisible” to the “academic community who tend to carry out the

research and write the reviews” (p. 663).

Learning Circles: An Example of Telecollaborative Project Work

An example of a telecollaborative project that has been well researched, combines

the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning, and will be a central part of this

investigation is Learning Circles. Learning Circles is an online project that uses a highly

interactive, project-based partnership methodology to encourage the creation of student

projects among a number of schools located throughout the world (Riel, 1995). The

Learning Circle model was developed as part of a research project called the “Inter-

Cultural Learning Network” at the University of California, San Diego in the mid 1980s

(Levin, Riel, Miyake, & Cohen, 1987). The project was further refined by the use of trial

phases that involved hundreds of classrooms (Riel, 1989, 1990b; Riel & Levin, 1990).

Eventually the initiative evolved into a commercial service in 1987 called the “AT&T

Learning Network.” This network supported collaborative work among thousands of

teachers until 1996, when project sponsorship was transferred to iEARN (Learning

9


Circles Website, 2007). iEARN continues to be the consistent sponsor of Learning

Circles.

Currently, the Learning Circles project has two sessions a year that are closely

aligned to the calendars of schools in the Northern hemisphere. A typical session will

involve 6 to 10 groups of schools called Circles. A coordinator creates Circles based on

the participants’ project interest, academic level, and geographic location (Riel, 1993). A

typical Circle contains 6 to 8 classrooms with the goal being to have two classrooms in

the Western Hemisphere and the remaining classrooms distributed throughout the rest of

the world. All communication is in English unless special arrangements have been made

whereby a Circle will run in another language.

A typical session runs for 16 weeks and follows a structured timeline that has

been developed to help schools accomplish various goals and to bring each project to a

conclusion (Riel, 1992a). The six phases of the Learning Circle project are: (a) Getting

Ready for Learning Circles, (b) Opening the Learning Circle, (c) Planning the Learning

Circle Projects, (d) Exchanging Student Work on Learning Circle Projects, (e)

Organizing the Circle Publication, and (f) Closing the Learning Circle (Riel, 1993).

Learning Circles is a telecollaborative project that encourages teachers and

students to use project-based learning methodologies. After exchanging introductory

greetings and cultural information through the use of a survey, teachers and students in

each Circle discuss project ideas and negotiate to sponsor an individual project that is

educationally curriculum based (Riel, 1996). Each class seeks collaboration on their

specific project from the other classrooms in their Circle and commits to contributing in

some way to every project that has been posted. After student work has been exchanged,

10


each class works to publish some type of finished project. Generally, these projects are in

some electronic form so that they can be easily distributed and shared. The project ends

with each class sending farewell messages, the Circle disbanding, and each class

attending to their own local concerns (Riel, 1992b). Some teachers will participate in the

next session, others will participate once a year, some choose to participate on an

infrequent basis, and others may participate only once. The Learning Circles project will

be used to investigate telecollaborative project work in this study, because it strongly

encourages the use of telecollaboration and project-based methodologies.

Statement of Problem

Each year the International Education and Research Network (iEARN) is the

sponsor of an international conference that brings together educators and students to

share their successes and struggles with telecollaborative project work. The conference is

the largest international gathering of educators who regularly participate and sponsor

telecollaborative project work between students in Kindergarten through 12th grade

schools throughout the world. I have attended this conference annually since the year

2000 and I have been often struck by the dedication and perseverance of the participants.

The teachers who attend often overcome great obstacles and personal sacrifice to provide

their students with opportunities to interact and participate with other students in online

learning activities.

Every year it appears to me that half of the attendees are familiar faces and the

other half are new faces, rich with anticipation and eagerness. The atmosphere is exciting

as teachers share the work of their students, and there is clearly an air of international

cooperation and camaraderie that rarely seems to take place in the world today. A

11


question that always comes to my mind is what are teachers getting from this experience

that causes their dedication to telecollaborative project activities and the methodologies

that are associated with the experience? Is it merely the novelty of using ICT,

international communication, or participating in online learning activities? I also find

myself questioning why some teachers are so devoted to this teaching practice, others

appear to experience moderate success, and many choose to abandon its use after one or a

few experiences? I really want to know what teachers are expecting when they register

their class for a telecollaborative project experience and if they actually realize these

expectations. Furthermore, I want to know what teachers who regularly use

telecollaborative project work are getting out of it that causes them to be so devoted and

supportive of the practice.

This discussion concerning the popularity and usefulness of telecollaborative

projects is not new. Harriman (2006) investigated the popularity of telecollaborative

projects and the benefits they actually provide while researching government support for

the use of technology in Australian schools. According to Harriman, the heart of this

issue concerns the ongoing debate about online learning activities and whether or not

they actually provide new learning opportunities for students. At the current time, the

literature celebrates the benefits of participation for students, but there are few studies

that actually examine what teachers experience and gain from a telecollaborative project

(Donlan, 1998). Even more puzzling is that the use of telecollaborative project work

remains “relatively invisible in reports of school-based use of ICT (Information and

Communication Technology) and in the research literature” (Harriman, 2006, p. 1).

12


Teachers, advocates, and service providers who support telecollaborative project

work are passionate about its benefit to students and its value to education. They have

and continue to establish online learning networks, create educational governmental

agencies, promote professional development, and share knowledge at international

conferences (Harris, 1998; Moursund, 2003; Resta, 2002; Rogers, 1999). The use of

telecollaborative project work is growing in its acceptance as a teaching methodology

(Wells, 2006); but in the literature, there is a noticeable lack of documentation about the

expectations teachers bring to a telecollaborative experience, their actual experiences, and

the benefits they derive from participation. It is likely that these expectations and

experiences play a critical role in teacher’s assessment of the benefits of telecollaborative

project work as well as their decision to participate in future projects (Rogers, Andres,

Jacks, & Clauset, 1990). This practice could be better understood if the literature could

provide a clear picture of what teachers expect and actually gain from their experiences.

Information regarding the use of this teaching practice would help to explain why some

teachers continue to use telecollaborative project work with students and others drop out

during the process. It may also provide insight into why some teachers are passionate

about this practice and why it is not attractive to others.

The Purpose of the Study

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand the expectations that lead

teachers to use telecollaborative project work with students. The use of this teaching

method requires teachers to utilize skills related to the classroom use of telecollaboration,

ICT, and project-based learning. There is also the added component that teachers and

students often find themselves working with project participants from different cultures

13


who are located in diverse geographical locations. The combination of all these elements

produces a unique teaching and learning environment that occurs over an extended period

of time and produces different phases of teacher challenges and successes. This research

will help to identify and understand the expectations teachers bring to a project and

provide answers as to whether or not they actually realize the expectations that drew them

to use telecollaborative project work. The experiences of teachers as they participate in

this practice and the stories they have to tell will help to provide an understanding of

what it is like for a teacher to participate in a telecollaborative project. This research will

identify what teachers personally and professionally hope to gain and realize from the

experience. Teachers will use their experience to provide insight and suggestions on

changes that could be made to improve the experience. Lastly this study will provide

some insight on why some teachers continue to use telecollaborative project work and

others choose to abandon its use.

Research Questions

This study will investigate the following research questions:

1. What are the expectations teachers have for their students and themselves that

motivate them to use telecollaborative project work in a K-12 school setting?

a. How do these expectations change over time as teachers and students

participate in a telecollaborative project?

b. What do teachers believe they and their students have gained by

participating in a telecollaborative project?

c. What are the suggestions of teachers on changes that could be made to

telecollaborative project experiences to improve their future participation?

14


2. To what degree do teachers’ level of technology integration, use of project-

based learning methods, and collaboration, as well as the obstacles and enablers

they work with affect their expectations and participation in a telecollaborative

project?

3. What are the experiences of teachers as they use telecollaborative project

work in a K-12 school setting that influence their future participation?

Significance of the Study

A current assessment of telecollaborative project work in the literature shows that

its use is supported by educational systems and its practice continues to be promoted in

educational policy (Wells, 2006). At the same time, most of the information on the

experiences of teachers and the benefits of telecollaborative project work “comes in the

form of anecdotal evidence from teachers, project facilitators and organizations” (p. 657).

In a discussion on the use of ICT in education, Wells maintained that recent literature

reviews show a “lack of accessible documentation on the development of, and

participation in, collaborative online projects by educationalists” (p. 657).

Realizing that there is so little research on what teachers are expecting from

telecollaborative project work and what they actually experience during telecollaborative

process (Fong, 2003; Wells, 2006), this leads to the question as to what this current study

could add to the literature? In the view of this researcher, the four major benefits that

could be derived from this study are to:

1. Identify the expectations teachers bring to a telecollaborative experience for

themselves and their students when making the decision to involve their class in a

project.

15


2. Understand if teachers’ expectations for themselves and their students are

realized or if they change as teachers lead their students through a

telecollaborative project.

3. Elicit suggestions from teachers on elements of the process that worked well

for themselves and their students as well as ways to improve the process for those

who will be participating in the future sessions of a telecollaborative project.

4. Understand the factors that teachers use to determine if they will participate

again or if they will abandon the teaching technique.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are used throughout this study. The definitions listed below

describe the terms as they are used in this study. Further detail can be found in Chapter 2.

Constructivism - a philosophy or an approach to learning supported by a range of

theories or set of beliefs about how people acquire knowledge. The belief that learners

construct knowledge through interactions with their environment, and each learner’s

knowledge construction is different.

Constructivist learning environment - a place where learners may work together

and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in a

guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities.

Information and communication technology (ICT) - A wide reaching phrase used

to describe the range of technologies for gathering, storing, retrieving, processing,

analyzing, and transmitting information. In education these facilities and features support

teaching and learning and include multimedia, Internet, and devices such as computers,

digital photography, video cameras, and communication devices.

16


ICT-assisted project-based learning - the use of project-based learning facilitated

by the use of information and communication technology for project management,

research, and communication.

Project-based learning - a comprehensive instructional model in which project

work is central to student understanding of the essential concepts and principles of the

disciplines.

Telecollaboration - the process of classrooms working together on mutually

negotiated projects by use of online communication tools.

Telecollaborative project - a curricular based educational endeavor designed and

coordinated by a teacher that involves students in different locations using online

communication to work together.

Organization of Chapters

Chapter 2 will provide a review of literature for this study. Chapter 3 will provide

a discussion of the research methodology used in this study. Chapter 4 will describe the

general findings collected from the complete group of teachers who participated in this

study. Chapter 5 will present a detailed case study of a group of seven teachers who

participated in one Learning Circles project. Chapter 6 will conclude with a discussion of

the findings, present conclusions, and make recommendations for future research.

17


CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Telecollaborative project work for students in a Kindergarten through 12th grade

school setting brings together the use of educational and instructional technology with the

constructivist orientation of project-based learning. One current use of this teaching

methodology is to develop a virtual community of learners who engage in

telecollaborative activities. This collaborative learning environment allows students and

teachers to grow and learn through interaction with other learners while focused on the

creation and construction of mutually negotiated project work.

This chapter presents a review of literature that looks at four areas that will be

investigated in this study. First I will look at the theories of learning that are the basis for

the development of telecollaborative project work and the use of project-based learning.

Second, I will examine the development of telecollaborative project work and present

some examples and models of a telecollaborative experience. Third, I will look at the

experiences teachers usually expect from a telecollaborative experience. Last, I will

explain how the research proposed here fills a gap in the literature by investigating what

actually happens in a telecollaborative experience.

The Foundations of Telecollaboration

Both telecollaborative project work and project-based learning have their

foundations in the constructivist theory of learning (Moursund, 2003). Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) can be used to support a constructivist-learning

environment that integrates the use of telecollaboration and project-based learning.

Teachers who use telecollaboration often utilize constructivist principles in the way they

implement and structure online projects. They also may attempt to create a constructivist-

18


learning environment that incorporates a learning model that includes project-based

learning and collaborative learning. Teachers’ understanding and interpretation of

constructivist principles in the classroom can be seen in the way they approach

telecollaborative project work, how they establish expectations, and how they manage the

project experience for their students.

Constructivist Theory of Learning

Constructivism can best be understood as a philosophy or an approach supported

by a range of theories or set of beliefs about how people acquire knowledge. The

constructivist theory of learning should not be considered a recent addition to the realm

of education, but rather has been developed over many years through the work of many

philosophers, educators, anthropologists, and researchers. In the early twentieth century,

the work of William James and John Dewey initiated and promoted many of the

foundational principles for constructivist thinking. In the later twentieth century this work

would be further developed by the well-known cognitive and social psychologists, F. C.

Bartlett, Jean Piaget, and L. S. Vygotsky (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Gergen, 1995).

The work of Piaget has come to be recognized as a foundation for understanding

how constructivism plays a vital role in the education of children (Perkins, 1999; von

Glaserfeld, 1999). Piaget (1954) surmised that children construct knowledge of the world

through assimilation and accommodation. He concluded from his research that

knowledge development results from an internal process of abstracting rules and

constructing understanding.

Bruner (1966), who worked with Piaget, stated that learning is an active process

in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past

19


knowledge. Central to the philosophy of constructivism is the idea that by placing the

focus of learning on the internal construction of knowledge, the emphasis for learning

shifts the process so that it focuses on the learner rather than the teacher (Markham, et al.,

2003). Perkins (1992) explained that learners construct knowledge through interactions

with their environment, and each learner’s knowledge construction is different. In this

way, learning is not viewed as the transmission of knowledge, but rather as an active

process by which learners make sense of the world. Learners should not be thought of as

an empty container waiting to be filled with knowledge, but rather as active seekers of

knowledge that are looking to make sense of the surrounding world (Driscoll, 2005). In

essence, learners use their understanding of current knowledge in order to build new

knowledge through the process of conducting investigations, conversations, and activities

(Grant, 2002). Bruner proposed that learners select and transform information, construct

hypotheses, and make decisions by relying on cognitive structures. These cognitive

structures then provide meaning and organization to experiences that allow learners to

construct new knowledge from previous knowledge.

In addition to constructivism, Vygotsky (1962) specifically looked at how social

influences affect learning and profoundly shapes cognitive development. Central to his

social constructivism theory was his belief that biological and cultural development does

not occur in isolation. Vygotsky (1978) believed that culture teaches children how and

what to think. A key assumption of Vygotsky’s social construction theory was that

learning is essentially a collaborative experience in which learners gain an understanding

of the surrounding world by mentally negotiating meaning from the different perspectives

20


they perceive (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Furthermore, Vygotsky believed that learners

construct knowledge best when they are engaged in social activities (Gredler, 1997).

Constructivist Learning Environments

Wilson (1998) defined a constructivist-learning environment as “a place where

learners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and

information resources in their guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving

activities” (p. 5). Duffy and Cunningham (1996) proposed that when you look at a

constructivist-learning environment you should see learners constructing knowledge

through social activities, and learners being challenged with realistic learning

opportunities. They further proposed that a constructivist-learning environment should

include activities that promote authentic learning and encourage social interaction.

Furthermore, in this environment you should see instructors functioning as facilitators of

learning rather than as knowledge transmitters.

Jonassen (1999) developed a model for designing constructivist-learning

environments that emphasized the learner's role in knowledge construction. He proposed

a model that included identifying an appropriate question, project, problem to focus on

that is ill defined, authentic, interesting, and engaging. Jonassen also suggested providing

learners access to related experiences for reference purposes, relevant, just-in-time

resources, as well as cognitive tools that scaffold the learner's ability to perform tasks,

such as visualization tools, and static knowledge representation tools. He stressed that

learners should be provided with tools that support collaboration and communication,

such as computer-mediated communications. In his model he also emphasized the need

21


for social/contextual support for the learning environment, such as modeling, coaching,

and scaffolding.

Honebein (1996) identified seven pedagogical goals of constructivist learning

environments. These goals involved providing experience with the knowledge

construction process as well as appreciation for multiple perspectives. They also included

embedding learning in realistic and relevant contexts as well as social experiences.

Furthermore, Honebein proposed that a constructivist learning environment should

encourage ownership and voice in the learning process, the use of multiple modes of

representation, and self-awareness of the knowledge construction process.

A comparison of the viewpoints on constructivist-learning environments by Duffy

and Cunningham, Jonassen, and Honebein show that all agree that foundationally the

environment should be a place where learners can actively construct knowledge through

various learning activities. They also propose various support activities that educators

should use to promote learning. The three viewpoints do display different main foci.

Duffy and Cunningham (1996) present general characteristics of a constructivist-learning

environment that an observer might find when viewing learners engaged in a learning

task. Jonassen’s (1999) model for a constructivist-learning environment is built around

the central problem as being the core of the process. In Jonassen’s model, all other

elements of a constructivist-learning environment exist to support the learning that takes

place around this problem. Honebein’s (1996) model looked at a constructivist-learning

environment from an instructor/facilitator’s viewpoint and identified action-oriented

goals a teacher should pursue to create an environment that supports a constructivist-

oriented learning task. In general, the characteristics that Duffy and Cunningham,

22


Jonassen, and Honebein identified all constitute elements that should be found in a

constructivist-learning environment.

One teaching methodology that is built around the use of a constructivist-learning

environment is project-based learning (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001). The next section will

discuss the principles and activities that constitute project-based learning.


Project-based learning is a teaching methodology that uses an inquiry process to

motivate learners to solve challenging questions and problems by constructing

collaborative projects that integrate subjects within a school curriculum (The George

Lucas Educational Foundation, 2005; Inquiry Page Project Group, 2001; Thomas, 2000).

Research has shown project-based learning to be an effective method for increasing

student motivation and improving problem-solving and higher order thinking skills

(Becker, Wong, & Ravitz, 1999; Blumenfeld, et al., 1991; Expeditionary Learning

Outward Bound, 1999a, 1999b; Gallagher et al., 1992; Ross et al., 1999; Stepien et al.,

1993; Stites, 1998). The theoretical foundation of project-based learning is strongly

grounded in constructivism. Project-based learning can be viewed as one approach to

creating a learning environment that utilizes many of the principles of constructivist

theory (Driscoll, 2005).

There are many different definitions of project-based learning, but there is no

universal definition that is agreed upon by all practitioners and proponents (Moursund,

1999, 2003). Common definitions of project-based learning identify it essentially as a

model that “organizes learning around projects” (Thomas, 2000, p. 2). All definitions

agree that it begins with a problem to be solved or question to be answered (Kozma &

23


Schank, 1998). This problem should be authentic (Markham, et al., 2003), challenging

(Thomas, 2000), and without a predetermined, correct solution (Blumenfeld, et. al.,

1991). Project-based learning tasks take students through an extended inquiry process

during which they “pursue solutions to nontrivial problems, ask and refine questions,

debate ideas, design plans and artifacts, collect and analyze data, draw conclusions, and

communicate findings to others” (Kozma & Schank, 1998, p. 9). Through this process

students learn to “budget their time, make effective use of limited resources, and work

with other people” (Moursund, et al., 1997, p. 63). A project-based learning activity ends

with students constructing realistic products and/or making presentations of their

solutions (Thomas, 2000).

The project-based learning approach begins with learners being presented with a

problem or challenge to solve without a predetermined solution. Learners have the

responsibility to design the process by which they reach a solution. Each problem or

challenge requires research and information gathering. Students are responsible for

determining their resources and managing their data (Markham, et al., 2003). Evaluation

takes place continuously in the project-based learning process in order for students to

adequately assess the effectiveness of their research and work. As part of this process

there are regular times for student discussion and reflection. In the end, a final product is

generated and this product or artifact is evaluated for its quality. Any time project-based

learning is used in a classroom, there should be an atmosphere that tolerates error and

change because risk taking, creativeness, and inventive thinking are encouraged (Global

SchoolNet, 2000).

24


As part of the initial planning process, the project-based learning approach asks

learners to consider and plan a project idea that culminates in the creation of an artifact as

part of the solution to their problem. In order to develop this project idea, learners have to

solve problems by researching and acquiring specific content knowledge. End projects

will vary widely in scope based upon the amount of time it takes to complete a project

idea. Also, learners will use different levels of technology based on the complexity and

sophistication of their overall project (Esch, 1998).

The project-based learning approach uses a production model that generally

follows these steps: planning, implementation, and processing (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).

In the planning phase, the learner chooses the topic, searches resources for needed

information, and organizes these resources into a usable form. In the implementation or

creation phase, the learner develops a project idea, combines the contributions of the

group, resolves problems and issues that arise in production, and builds a product. In the

processing phase, the overall goals of the project are shared with other groups, feedback

is obtained, and then the group reflects on the end product.

For the purposes of this study the project-based learning model that will be

investigated involves the use of ICT and includes key elements such as a motivating

problem; a concluding product, presentation, publication, or performance; and project

communication, production, and presentation facilitated by ICT. Students should have

ownership of the process; be actively involved in discovering and constructing

knowledge rather than passively learning; and be involved in some form of collaboration

involving a group of students and/or classes of students. The learning experience should

25


focus on the use of higher order thinking skills throughout the problem and process;

contain ongoing assessment; and feature teacher facilitation.

The use of student collaboration is a common element found in project-based

learning models. The next section defines the term and looks at characteristics of student

collaboration.

Collaborative Learning

The use of collaboration, cooperation, and communication skills is a common

theme among most project-based learning models (Lopez-Ortiz & Lin, 2005). The

project-based learning process focuses learners on using their accumulated skills and

current understanding of a problem to construct a solution and develop a product that

displays their accumulated problem-solving efforts. Interaction, negotiation, and

consensus building with other learners are major goals of the project-based learning

methodology. Students are encouraged to work collaboratively with the understanding

that the solution to a problem can best be accomplished by utilizing the shared body of

knowledge that exists among the group of learners involved in the problem-solving task.

Efficiently using shared knowledge in a collaborative endeavor is a major challenge of

the project-based learning approach (Markham, et al., 2003).

The terms collaborative learning and cooperative learning are often used

interchangeably. It is possible that some of this confusion in the literature began when the

researchers Johnson and Johnson (1996) used the term cooperation to refer to higher-

level group work usually associated with collaborative learning models (Changwatchai,

2005). There are important distinctions between the two learning processes even though

both methods involve placing a group of students in a shared learning task (see Table 1).

26


Cooperative learning generally focuses on a group of learners sharing various roles in a

learning task. Bernard, Rubalcava, and St-Pierre (2000) described a cooperative learning

structure that included having students in clearly defined roles, each contributing a part to

the learning task, with the combined effort being the completion of a common group

goal. Ideally, the final product or conclusions of the group should be a sum total of the

efforts of each individual contribution.

Table 1

Characteristics of Collaborative and Cooperative Learning

Likenesses and Differences Between Collaborative and Cooperative Learning

Collaborative Cooperative

1. Learners work together in groups. 1. Learners work together in groups.

2. Focus is on group consensus building through cooperation among members.

2. Focus is on shared distribution of work tasks among group members.

3. Utilizes individual group members’ abilities and contributions.

3. Defined set of processes to help learners interact.

4. Shared authority and responsibility among group members.

4. Group exists to accomplish a task or develop an end product.

5. Structure of learning groups defined by participants.

5. Structure of learner groups defined by the teacher.

Collaborative learning focuses on the mutual engagement of learners in the

learning process. The primary focus is to cause students to take advantage of their own

unique abilities and perspectives to achieve a group consensus that is greater than the sum

of all the collective efforts of each individual (Panitz, 1997). Bruffee (1993) defined

collaborative learning as "a reculturative process that helps students become members of

knowledge communities whose common property is different from the common property

27


of the knowledge communities they already belong to" (p. 3). Brown and Palincsar(1989)

proposed that a major reason for using a collaborative learning structure is to promote the

use of active and constructivist-learning as well as cause students to use higher-order

thinking skills. Slavin (1995) saw collaborative learning as the development of a learning

community that is formed to share their expertise with each other and accomplish some

type of learning task. In Slavin’s view, the role of the teacher is minimized to allow

collaborative groups to achieve their own consensus.

Project-based learning models consistently include the use of collaborative

learning as a primary feature of the process (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; The George Lucas

Educational Foundation. 2005; Global SchoolNet. 2000; Markham, et al., 2003;

Moursund, 2003). Major reasons to use student collaboration with project-based learning

are promoting the attributes of work sharing, examining perspectives from different

viewpoints, defending personal positions, developing common goals, negotiating

solutions, and building a sense of community among learners (Bryson, 1994; Dillenbourg

& Schneider, 1995; Hartley, 1999; Reyes, 1998). Using collaboration in the project-based

learning process can be seen as another way to promote real-life experiences for students

to use their own understanding, research, ideas, and imagination to construct knowledge

(Tongdeelert, 2003). Students who are engaged in collaborative learning for the purpose

of project work become a group of learners focused on a shared learning task. This is, in

essence, a community of learners dedicated to a common goal.

Telecollaborative project work is a learning approach that allows learners to

construct knowledge through social interaction. It is best accomplished in a

constructivist-learning environment that promotes challenging and authentic learning

28


opportunities where the teacher functions more in the role of a facilitator of learning than

a person who imparts knowledge. Ideally, when teachers use telecollaborative project

work they are looking to engage in project work that is based on constructivist principles,

uses some project-based learning methodology, and engages their students as well as

themselves in collaborative activities. In this study, I will be looking to see if teachers are

using constructivist principles in their approach to telecollaborative project work and if

this plays a major role in their overall experience. I will also be exploring the degree to

which these principles shape their expectations for the process, how these expectations

shape their experiences with other participants, and if their expectations play a major

factor when teachers evaluate the success of their experience.

The Role of Expectations

Expectations are an important factor to consider, because of the role they play in

the educational process. The well publicized Pygmalion study conducted by Rosenthal

and Jacobson (1968) concluded that the intellectual development of students does have a

direct relationship to what teachers expect and how those expectations are communicated.

Since this ground breaking study, there has been a great deal of research to study the

effect and impact of teacher expectations on students (Cotton, 1989). Most studies have

generally focused on how teacher and school expectations directly affect student

outcomes. Some studies have supported the validity of expectancy effects (Brattesani,

1984; Brophy, 1983; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1992), while others have found technical

issues they believe question the results of Rosenthal and Jacobson (Snow 1969;

Thorndike 1968; Wineburg 1987). Even though the discussion still continues in the

research community, the consensus among educators and the general public is that

29


expectations communicated school wide and in classrooms do have an effect on student

achievement and attitudes (Cotton).

Understanding the role of expectations in telecollaborative project work is

important because they can serve as a filter through which teachers make decisions

regarding their practices (Harris & Figg, 2000). Expectations may also influence the

choices teachers make in selecting various types of educational opportunities for students

and may predispose teachers to choose or gravitate toward specific learning activities

(Levin, 2008). The realization or adjustment of expectations may also influence how

teachers evaluate educational experiences (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006).

What a Telecollaborative Experience Is Like?

The idea of telecollaboration developed from the goal of connecting learners

together in a global learning community. The development of ICT tools has allowed for

the establishment of virtual communities of learners. In order to understand this

experience, it is useful to understand how the term telecollaboration came to be used to

describe a type of learning experience. This next section will first discuss how

telecollaborative project work developed as a use of ICT integration. After this I will

discuss how constructivist principles found their home in online learning communities

and how online learning communities utilized ICT to develop the process of

telecollaboration. To help understand the different types of activities that can be part of

the telecollaborative process, I have identified the various classifications that can be used

to describe different telecollaborative experiences. I will follow this with an explanation

of how current uses of telecollaboration often use project-based learning as a model for

managing the project construction phase. I will then look at the support that currently

30


exists by groups and organizations to promote and facilitate telecollaborative project

work. The last part of the section will describe a project called Learning Circles that is

illustrative of the type of work teachers can accomplish using telecollaboration and


Global Learning Communities

The idea of using technology to connect communities of learners internationally

had its beginning in 1925 in the rural mountain town of Le Bar-sur Loup in southern

France. A classroom teacher, Célestin Freinet, and a colleague began an exchange

program between classrooms that had a transforming effect on their teaching and

inevitably lead to the beginning of the Mouvement de l’École Moderne (Modern School

Movement) (Rogers, 1999). Their project work included the exchange of student essays,

photographs, and cultural artifacts between schools. Their first use of technologies

involved the use of printing presses and the French postal network. New technologies

would later be utilized as they became available. From the beginning, their practice was

not technology driven, but rather was “based on good and sound teaching practices” that

were continually “tested and refined through decades of collaboration, reflection, and

success” (Roberts, 2004, p. 1). At his death in 1966, Freinet’s global learning network

involved over 10,000 schools in 33 nations and is still one of the largest technology-

based learning communities in history (Cummins & Sayers, 1995).

The idea of using electronic networks as a place where learners from different

areas of the world can come together, interact, and share knowledge was a natural

extension of Freinet’s dream of a global community of learners (Rogers, 1999).

Furthermore, the initial promise of introducing the information superhighway into

31


education brought with it the hope that global learning networks could be established in

which students could participate in intercultural collaborative learning tasks (Cummins &

Sayers, 1995). These new learning environments “suggest that computing and networking

technologies could potentially find their most powerful application within the framework

of the constructivist paradigm” (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and

Technology. 1997, p. 56).

Constructivist Principles in Online Learning Communities

The foundational principles of constructivist learning environments have

important implications for the design of online learning communities (Tam, 2000). In a

summative evaluation of curricula, Moursund (2002) found that ICT provides a platform

for the development of instructional models that facilitate constructivist-learning

environments. Thorsen (2003) proposed that constructivist theories of learning provide an

ideal foundation for developing online learning network models for the promotion and

facilitation of student project work.

A constructivist-learning environment that supports a community of learners

engaged in online collaborative project work should be based in the foundations of

constructivist learning theory and should utilize the unique communication, productivity,

product creation, and presentation qualities that ICT can provide (Resta, 2002). The

student environment should be one that is based in a constructivist philosophy that

features students maintaining as much ownership as possible of content and resources.

The experience should be problem based, centered around a problem that contains

authentic content, and characterized by tasks that are real world, authentic, and

compelling. This experience should be defined by clear student goals that include

32


incremental steps and end results, rich with opportunities for social interaction, and

characterized by intellectual challenges that focus on time commitment resources,

discovery learning, and higher-order thinking skills. Project work should be facilitated by

a teacher who functions as a guide, mentor, and resource, and be collaborative among a

group of students and/or classes of students. The experience should conclude with a

product, presentation, publication, or performance and be assessed on an ongoing basis at

each incremental stage of the process

Ideally, the framework of an online environment should contain all the traditional

elements of a constructivist-learning environment (Tam, 2000). It should also have the

potential to provide support and opportunities for interaction with multiple human and

digital resources that have not been traditionally found in a classroom environment.

Today, progress towards the development of a constructivist-oriented learning

environment can be seen in the various ways that the Internet is used in education. Even

though not originally intended for use by the K-12 educational community, the use of the

Internet has shown steady growth among K-12 educators and students since its

introduction into schools (Resta, 2002). Throughout the 1990s, classrooms became

connected so that teachers and students could benefit by using the Internet for

instructional purposes (Winters, 1998). Online networks facilitated by ICT are being used

to create virtual learning environments that can facilitate student interaction and

collaboration (Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Harris, 2002). An initial promise was the vision

that students could benefit by being networked with other students in collaborative

learning tasks (Silva & Breuleux, 1994). Kearsley (2000) proposed that, without the

limits of geography, students now have new learning opportunities that were not

33


practically possible before the use of ICT in the classroom. Central to this is the idea that

ICT has the potential to allow students to be part of a global community where culture

and ideas can be exchanged as students learn about one another and from each other

(Gragert, 2002). Teachers are also finding that projects with international classes provide

students with opportunities “for language development when used in conjunction with

process writing, for social integrations when combined with cooperative learning

techniques, and for critical inquiry when used within a framework for critical literacy”

(Figueroa, Sayers, & Brown, 2001, p. 8). Communication that is facilitated through use

of computers can allow teams of student learners to be created from those who live in

diverse and distant locations. These teams can be comprised of students who would never

be able to physically work together because of their geographic location, social class, or

cultural differences (Andres, 1995; McCormick & McCormick, 1992; Riel, 1993;

Zimmerman, Zimmerman, & Blanton, 1995).

Telecollaboration

Different writers and researchers have used various terms to describe learning that

occurs when one connects students and teachers through the use of online networks.

Craig (1997) discussed student-oriented projects that combined written language, use of

communication technology, and were focused on a specific topic. He used the term

“telecollaborative project” and defined it as “an online project that blends curriculum,

instruction, and technology” (p. 6).

Riel (1990b) initially used the phrase “cooperative learning across classrooms” to

indicate an educational project that involves sharing information with another person or

group of people by means of some long distance computer network. These projects

34


involved collecting data, conducting interviews and surveys, analyzing data and drawing

conclusions. Riel has also used the phrases “educational telecomputing” and “educational

telecommunication.” Projects that fall in these categories could range from setting up a

simple information exchange relationship between students in two geographically

separated classrooms to involving many classrooms and experts from around the world in

an information-gathering project that requires a collaborative effort. Riel’s (1995) work

led to the creation of the AT&T Learning Network that was established to promote a

model for connecting classrooms around the world through the use of telecollaboration.

Rogers, et al. (1990) used the term “telecomputing” to refer to the interactive and

collaborative project facilitated by the use of communication technology. The work of

Rogers and Andres led to the formation of the Global Schoolhouse Network (Global

SchoolNet Website, 2006), which is dedicated to promoting collaboration among teachers

and students in diverse geographic areas by means of electronic networks. In describing

this type of student project work, the Global Schoolhouse Network has used the terms

online collaborative learning; online collaborative project work; collaborative, project-

based learning on the Internet; networked-based learning; and recently networked


The Global Schoolhouse Network identifies the Internet and World Wide Web as

a “communications and collaboration medium” (Global SchoolNet Website, 2006). They

present ideas on how teachers can engage and challenge students to learn by using the

Internet and World Wide Web as a powerful communication tool for gathering

information and accomplishing multimedia presentations. The Global Schoolhouse

Network further offers that online collaborative project work and networked project-

35

http://www.gsn.org/

http://www.gsn.org/


based learning can be accomplished by using the communication resources of the Internet

to facilitate that exchange of ideas and research between students in different school and

learning locations. They further state that because this project work can be viewed on the

Internet it can be of value to both the student creators and the international world

community (Global SchoolNet Website).

Harris (1995, 1998) has used both phrases “telecomputing projects” and

“telecollaborative projects” to refer to Internet-assisted learning activities that generally

involve students collaborating with students or adults in different locations. Harris went

on to identify that “these projects share: experiences, beliefs, data, information, problem-

solving strategies, products they have developed, or the joint development of products”

(p.4).

Online networks facilitated by ICT are being used to create virtual learning

environments that can facilitate student interaction and collaboration (Cummins &

Sayers, 1995; Harris, 2002). Harris (2000) has shown how a networked learning

environment can provide students with at least eighteen different types of opportunities to

communicate, share resources, and collaborate with other students and teachers around

the world (see Table 2).

Table 2

Harris’s Categories of Telecomputing Activities


Genre Type of Activity

Interpersonal Exchange Keypals

Global Classrooms

Electronic Appearances

36


Telementoring

Question and Answer

Impersonations

Information Collection and Analysis Information Exchanges

Database Creation

Electronic Publishing

Telefieldtrips

Pooled Data Analysis

Problem Solving Information Searches

Peer Feedback Activities

Parallel Problem Solving

Sequential Creations

Telepresent Problem Solving

Simulations

Social Action Projects


Interpersonal Exchanges

Interpersonal exchanges are identified as exchanges of e-mail, large group

discussions, and video conferencing activities. Harris (2002) identified these activities as

the most used in educational telecomputing. Harris labeled activities in this category as:

keypals, global classrooms, electronic appearances, telementoring, question-and-answer

activities, and impersonations. The structure and form of these projects generally follows

37


similar classroom activities that have been done in the past without the use of computers

or other forms of educational technology. The use of telecomputing helps to facilitate

these activities and to create connections that extend far beyond the boundaries of the

classroom.

Keypals. Keypals is the most popular telecomputing activity and is essentially the

pairing of student classrooms for the purpose of exchanging email. It could be best

described as a digital penpal project. The major challenge for teachers is to manage the

flow of messages between students. Generally these projects do not focus around specific

topics or research interests.

Global Classrooms, Electronic Appearances, Telementoring, Question-and-

Answer, and Impersonations. Global classrooms involve two or more classrooms

studying a specific curricular topic in a similar time frame. This can be done for a short or

long-term project. Generally the activities involve the sharing of information regarding

current units of study. Electronic appearances, telementoring, and question-and-answer

activities all involve the use of persons from outside the classroom who help with a

learning activity. This is often accomplished by creating an “electronic” appearance of a

guest or expert through the use of videoconferencing. Having a student or teacher

impersonate a character that is found in a piece of literature or history forms an

impersonation activity. Students electronically communicate and interact with someone

who answers their questions over a computer. In this way a character from literature or a

person from a page of history comes to life and interacts with students.

38


Information Collection and Analysis

The information collections and analysis category is built around students

collecting, compiling, and comparing information to support both student and teacher

learning. Harris identified five activities in this categories; information exchanges,

database, electronic publishing, telefieldtrips, and pooled data analysis. The power of

information collections is that these different activities and structures can be linked to

provide multiple experiences for learning.

Information Exchange and Database. Typically an information exchange activity

occurs when a group of classrooms exchange information on a selected topic of mutual

interest. Generally this information is then managed into different formats so that it can

be shared with others. An example of this might be the creation of a group database of

information.

Online Publishing. Students also share information through the use of online

publishing. This activity is done through the use of online periodicals, online galleries,

shared Web pages, and multimedia tools.

Telefieldtrip. A telefieldtrip occurs when a classroom or group of educators take

an actual field trip and share their experiences with other classes through the use of

shared online information. Other students participate by sharing their experiences or by

being a part of a virtual expedition such as Maya Quest 1998 and Galapagos Quest 1999.

Students generally participate asynchronously, but telefieldtrips do offer the opportunities

to experience parts of the trip in real time.

Pooled Data Analysis. A pooled data analysis occurs when students gather all

their data together in one location for the purpose of group analysis. This is useful for

39


large collaborative research projects and the analysis of scientifically gathered

information.

Problem Solving

The last category discussed by Harris is problem-solving projects. Activities in

this category are information searches, peer feedback activities, parallel problem solving,

telepresent problem solving, simulations, sequential creations, and social action projects.

Projects in this category focus on using collaborative interactions to promote the

development of higher order thinking skills through the use of active learning

opportunities.

Information Searches and Peer Feedback Activities. Information search activities

are constructed by having students use online or traditional resources to answer a specific

set of questions in a defined time period. Often these activities are designed as short-term

competitions designed to support convergent and deductive thinking. Similarly, peer

feedback activities are set up as an electronic debate in which students give responses to

each other’s ideas and opinions.

Parallel Problem Solving, Telepresent Problem Solving, Simulations, Sequential

Creations, and Social Action Projects. Parallel problem solving activities ask students to

explore solutions to a problem by interacting online through the use of discussion. The

format for this activity can be done in the form of a global exchange of ideas, beliefs, and

opinions for the purpose of solving real-world problems. A telepresent problem-solving

activity uses various forms of multimedia to connect students. During these activities,

students from various geographic locations meet asynchronously or in real time to engage

in cooperative tasks. This might involve engaging in a computer-mediated project that

40


involves the use of a robotic arm or some other technology-driven manipulative object. A

simulation is designed to facilitate student involvement in some type of problem that is

created to resemble a real-life situation. Sequential creations are generally associated with

an art-based project and often serve as a written extension of the project. A social action

project has students engaging some real-world problem. After students investigate a

problem they are then asked to recommend solutions that can be viewed and evaluated by

other participants.

Harris (1998) maintained that each of these different telecollaborative experiences

is not necessarily an end product unto itself, but adapted and modified to meet various

educational goals. It has become common for teachers to combine these telecollaborative

project categories identified by Harris into larger projects that are designed to be forms of


Connection Between Telecollaboration and Project-based Learning

There is no definitive relationship between telecollaboration and project-based

learning, but there are some instances where the two are associated or an assumption is

made whereby telecollaboration naturally implies the use of project-based learning. Prior

to the advent of ICT, artifacts created as part of the project-based learning process were

generally some physical creation, but today they often take the form of a digital creation.

Moursund (2003) has described how ICT can be a powerful tool in the data management

and creation phase of project-based learning. An examination of Harris’s categorization

of telecollaborative activities helps to understand how these could be used alone or in

multiple combinations to facilitate project-based learning type activities.

41


Internet Websites devoted to promoting telecollaborative type activities such as

iEARN and Global School Net have developed online projects and resources to help

teachers and students participate in telecollaborative activities. These activities are often

in the form of projects that can be built around one type of activity described by Harris or

more complicated project-based learning types of activities that are often combination of

the activities described by Harris.

Current Support For Telecollaborative Project Work

It would seem, that with the abundance of online technology available, it would

be easy to find schools and students doing telecollaborative project work. Yet there are

many obstacles and difficulties that teachers find in making connections (Berenfeld,

1996a; Harris, 2000; Young, 1999). School curricula are diverse and often the goals of

one classroom are not the same as others in different regions of a country. Collaborative

project work with schools in different cultures and regions of the world is problematic

due to the fact that schools in different countries follow different timetables and also have

different priorities. School breaks that are often built around national holidays can vary

greatly around the world. High-stakes, government-required examinations often cause

schools to abandon collaborative project work during testing periods. Also there are vast

cultural differences in how educators assign priorities in the value and role of project

work in the curriculum. It is common for schools to drop out unexpectedly as teachers

and learners become overburdened with local concerns, much to the dismay and

detriment of active project participants. Furthermore, the process of finding partner

schools interested in collaborating on the same projects at the same time can involve a

great deal of teacher time.

42


There are various organizations with Websites that are dedicated to providing

teachers with information, resources, and support for online project work. Many of these

organizations provide opportunities for teachers and students to telecollaborate, but only

a few specifically promote project-based learning activities. Throughout the past 10 years

there have been numerous organizations that have existed and have since stopped

providing services. Major organizations that continue to provide services are Global

SchoolNet, the International Education and Resource Network (iEARN), Schools Online,

Oracle Education Foundation’s Think.com, International E-Mail Classroom Connections

(IECC), ePals, and KidLink. Of these seven educational support organizations only

Global SchoolNet and iEARN specifically promote online resources to help teachers

engage in ICT-assisted project-based learning activities (Global SchoolNet Website,

2007; iEARN Website, 2007).

Learning Circles is an example of a telecollaborative project that each year brings

together teachers and students from between 100 to 150 classrooms and uses an

interaction model to promote project-based learning activities that focus around literary

themes. It should be noted that this model has been used extensively for many different

types of projects in addition to literary themes. Currently iEARN facilitates and supports

the Leaning Circles project (Learning Circles Website, 2007).

Learning Circles

The Learning Circles telecollaborative experience is a structured process that

begins with interested classroom teachers registering for projects (Riel, 1993). Teachers

and classrooms are then profiled and matched together based on the age level of the

students and their area of project interest. After this, a coordinator creates a group (or

43


Circle) of 6 to 8 teachers who are brought together for a 3 to 4 month period to work on

telecollaborative project-based learning type activities (Riel, 1996). The project choices

for the group are ideally organized around a selected theme and then drawn from the

curriculum objectives or content standards of each of the classrooms in the Circle. As an

example, if the selected theme is creative writing, then each school would investigate a

problem that involves some use of creative writing, is project-based, and can be justified

because it addresses some local curriculum objective or content standard (Riel, 1992b).

The Phases of a Learning Circle

The Learning Circles process follows a structured timetable designed to promote

teacher and student online interaction (Riel, 1992a). There are six distinct phases that are

designed to facilitate classroom interaction and the development of project-based

activities (see Table 3) (Riel, 1990a). The first phase of Learning Circles begins with

teachers preparing their classrooms for interaction with other students. This is also a time

for classrooms to identify any technical or organizational issues that may exist. After this,

Circles are officially opened online with an exchange of greetings. Messages are

transmitted by email or through the use of online interactive forums that are supported by

the iEARN. Through the exchange of messages and surveys that focus on cultural

information students come to know each other. Part of this exchange can also involve the

exchange of physical artifacts sent by surface mail.

Table 3

Major Phases of the Learning Circles Project

Six Phases of the Learning Circle Process

1. Getting Ready for Learning Circles

44


2. Opening the Learning Circle

3. Planning Student Projects

4. Exchanging Student Work

5. Organizing the Circle Publication

6. Closing the Learning Circle

The third phase of Learning Circles is the most crucial and involves the

development of Project Ideas that eventually become specific requests for information.

Projects are designed to be collaborative in nature and involve students exchanging ideas,

beliefs, opinions, and data. The development of projects involves a great deal of

discussion between students and teachers and could be characterized as a negotiation.

Teachers and students are encouraged to draw ideas from their local curriculums and

promote project choices that are based in student interest. Student interest and ownership

should be an integral part of this process. Projects generally focus around a central

literary theme such as journalism, education, creative writing, geography, global issues,

or environmental concerns. A school-sponsored project is designed to address one aspect

of the overall project theme and is composed of elements that will allow for collaboration

with students in other schools.

Phase four of Learning Circles is the Exchange of Student Work. During this

period students research and develop information for other classrooms. Students will also

begin to develop the framework and basic information for their own project. The

commitment classrooms make is to supply information in some form for every classroom

that makes a request. This may involve responses from and entire class of students or

45


from student teams. The collection, management, organization, and distribution of

information become a critical component of the process at this time.

The fifth phase of Learning Circles is the publication phase and involves students

taking all the information that has been collected and organizing into some type of

publication that can be shared with all the classrooms in the Circle. In the past, these

publications were traditionally print publications that were compiled, edited, and

published in a book form. The use of ICT has broadened this aspect of Learning Circles

and has allowed learners to engage further into project-based learning through the

creation of digital artifacts. Currently, publications take on the form of cross-platform

digital presentations created using Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Websites, blogs, Wikis,

PDF files, html documents, digital video, and Mp3 files.

After each class publishes its project, all pieces are brought together and made

available for viewing, downloading, and assessing through the use of interactive forums

and Websites. The last phase of the Circle is the ending. Just as a regular school

classroom has a beginning and an end, Learning Circles also disbands when projects are

completed. Each new Learning Circles session begins with new groupings of classes

(Riel, 1990a).

Learning Circles brings together diverse types of classrooms from many varied

geographic areas (Riel, 1995). Schools that participate in Learning Circles cover a wide

range of types. They may range from large urban districts, suburban schools, remote rural

schools, or even home schooling groups. Circles are also composed of students from a

very diverse background of educational, physical, and social abilities. The use of online

communication allows students to interact without regard to restrictions that might

46


normally prevent them from interacting with each other. The only requirement an

educator needs to participate is a computer networked to the Internet. A Circle will

routinely feature 2 to 3 classes from North America and then one or more classrooms

from all the inhabited continents throughout the world. It is common for students from

India, Kazakhstan, Romania, Australia, Kenya, United Kingdom, Iran, Netherlands, and

the United States to be communicating with each other on cultural and project-related

issues (Learning Circles Website, 2007).

Research associated with Learning Circles has shown various educational benefits

for students and teachers that can be associated with their engagement in collaborative

project work using electronic networks. In a study that examined the content of student

messages, Riel (1993) found that the geographic diversity of the Learning Circle

participants appeared to enhance student ability to gain insights into the cultures of other

participants. In a study that examined the quality of students' writing under two

controlled conditions, Cohen and Riel (1989) found “a clear improvement in writing

when students wrote to communicate with peers as compared to when they wrote to

demonstrate their skill for their teacher's evaluation” (p. 154). Gallini and Helman (1993)

replicated this study and achieved similar results.

A case study examination of Learning Circles found that the process allowed

teachers to extend local school curriculums by providing ways to extend traditional

subjects (Riel, 1992b). This same study also found that students were able to extend their

thinking beyond the classroom to draw on family and community resources for

information, making them more aware of their social and physical surroundings. Another

observed benefit was that teachers and students extended their technical skills with

47


telecomputing as they worked cooperatively with Circle members in distant locations.

Furthermore, the same case study analysis of Learning Circles found that teachers

benefited from their participation in the Learning Circles by sharing and being exposed to

new educational ideas from colleagues in other parts of the world (Riel, 1991, 1992b,

1993).

Learning Circles is an example of how telecollaborative project-based learning

can be facilitated through the use of ICT. Learners use computers, communication tools,

and networks to facilitate the exchange of information and ICT productivity tools are

used to process information, create, exchange, and assess digital artifacts. A vital part of

this process and major component of project-based learning is the use of collaborative

learning within schools and between schools (Riel, 1996).

Learning Circles is an example of an international telecollaborative program that

developed during the late 1980s as a way to promote telecollaborative project work in a

constructivist-learning environment. Different classifications of online collaborative

projects are a vital area of connection between classes that telecollaborate during

Learning Circles and are the source of many teacher expectations. The iEARN Learning

Circles project will serve as the background for this inquiry to investigate teachers’

expectations and experiences with various types of telecollaborative projects.

What Are Teachers Expecting?

The previous section looked at different examples of telecollaborative experiences

in the literature, this next section addresses the types of expectations teachers might bring

to a telecollaborative experience. Teachers establish expectations based on many factors.

In this study I will look at how teachers’ expectations for a telecollaborative experience

48


may be based on their level of technology integration, the obstacles they perceive in their

use of ICT, their understanding of the function of ICT in project work, and their reasons

for using telecollaborative project work. Furthermore, there have been criticisms that

have been presented in the literature that have addressed some of the potential problems

that teachers may face when they use telecollaborative project work that might also

influence the expectations teachers have for its use.

ICT Use in Education

The availability of ICT for use in education has presented teachers with tools to

access educational resources and people throughout the educational community. ICT is

currently used in schools for a variety of purposes such as record-keeping, internal

communication, administrative tasks, presentation, and research needs. Each year the use

of ICT continues to become more common, yet its integrated use in day-to-day classroom

instruction for activities such as telecollaborative project work remains one of the lower

areas of use (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

In a case study of teacher education foundation courses, Richard (2005) found

that much of the disappointment regarding effective ICT integration can be associated

with its frequent educational use as an “add on” teaching activity and not as a primary

instructional media tool. Currently ICT use continues to center around computer access

and predominately focuses on activities such as student rewards, drills for specific skills,

and extra-curricular activities (Roberts, 2004). Often methodologies that use ICT tend to

follow traditional teaching models even though constructivist models have shown to be

potentially more effective (Barab, Kling, & Gray, 2004; Becker & Riel, 1999).

49


The study of the relationship between ICT and constructivism continues to be a

growing area of research. Judson (2006) surveyed and observed classroom teachers in

order to determine their beliefs about instruction and found that a teacher who is a more

effective user of ICT is more likely to hold constructivist-teaching beliefs. In an

assessment of didactic versus constructivist curriculums, Moursund (2003) summarized

that the tools of ICT lend themselves to the promotion of constructivist teaching

methodologies. Other studies have concluded that teachers are more effective at

integrating ICT in teaching when they see tools and resources such as the Internet,

multimedia, and other related technologies as being vitally connected to constructivist

beliefs of learning, communicating, and applying knowledge (Kress, 2003; Lankshear &

Snyder, 2000).

Assessing a Teacher’s Level of Technology Integration

The concern for how teachers use and integrate technology was the focus of the

Apple Computer’s Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) project (1995). ACOT was a

ten-year longitudinal study that followed teachers for an extended period of time and

recorded how they learned to use technology in the classroom. Teachers were supported

with computers, software, professional development, and additional support in their

implementation of various technology initiatives. The ACOT study found that teachers

normally go though orderly stages of change when they begin to use a new educational

technology in the classroom.

The researchers classified teachers into fives stages. In the entry stage, teachers

begin to learn the basics of the new technology. After this, teachers advance to the

adoption stage where they use new technology to support their traditional instructional

50


practices without making and specific changes to those actual practices. The next level of

advancement is the adaptation stage. Here teachers thoroughly integrate their use of new

technology into traditional classroom practice. This stage is often characterized by the

use of productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases, graphic

programs, presentation tools, and content-specific software. The next level of

advancement is the appropriation stage where teachers understand the use of technology

and incorporate it seamlessly into their own work practices and classroom. Their

instruction will focus on the use of cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work.

Lastly, in the invention stage, teachers will begin to discover, experiment, and design new

uses for technology tools and will create projects that incorporate multiple technologies

(Apple Computers, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).

The ACOT study found that that two key factors that can enhance a teacher’s

progress through the various stages are when teachers and students are given access to

technology in the classroom and when teachers are given the opportunity to look at

different approaches to teaching and learning. The lesson learned from ACOT is that

teachers will progress in their use of technology along a predictable path if they are given

the support and tools necessary to make advancements. What remains most troubling is

the number of teachers who remain at the adoption phase and do not progress any further

(Newhouse, Trinidad, & Clarkson, 2002).

Barriers to Technology Integration

Obstacles that hinder teachers from incorporating practices such as

telecollaborative project work into the classroom are associated with the same obstacles

that prevent teachers from using technology in general. Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and

51


Woods (1999) proposed that there are two major categories of barriers that prevent

teachers from using technology in their classrooms. The first are classified as extrinsic

barriers and include items such as lack of access to computers and software, insufficient

time to plan instruction, inadequate training, and lack of administrative support. The

second category is comprised of intrinsic barriers such as teachers’ beliefs about the

fundamental nature of teaching, their beliefs about computers, their adherence to

established classroom practices, and their resistance to change.

Research by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency

(BECTA) (2004a) also found similar results while investigating barriers on teachers’ use

of ICT. Extrinsic barriers that were most commonly identified were lack of dependable

Internet access, curriculum integration training, technical support, and time constraints.

Intrinsic barriers that occurred most frequently were teachers’ confidence level,

unwillingness to change their teaching practices and the difficulties schools found in

being unable to re-organize to facilitate innovative practices involving ICT.

Currently, the education community has been criticized for the disparity between

the hype of proposed gains and benefits of educational technology and the reality of

performance (Cuban, 2001; Healy, 1998). What appears to be missing is the use of

computers and related ICT technology in ways that uniquely promotes and extends

learning. Whereas the use of ICT has become thoroughly integrated into the world of

business and commerce, it has not achieved its seamless integration throughout the

various levels of education. The use of ICT in school along with the integration of

constructivist-based teaching methodologies has been targeted by some as an area that

has the potential to be a foundation for creating major reforms in instruction and learning

52


(Clouse & Nelson, 2000; Moursund, 2002). The next sections will look at how ICT and

the use of constructivist principles have been used to connect students and establish

virtual communities of learners.

The Function of ICT in Telecollaborative Project Work

The use of ICT in telecollaborative project-based learning can be found in many

phases of the project-based learning process. Initially learners are connected to each other

through some type of telecommunications network. Most often this involves the use of a

computer and some connection to the Internet. Students may communicate with each

other through the use of email messages or an online forum that records all sent messages

and responses. Online forums are useful for organizing information and seeing a

progression of messages. Asynchronous message delivery systems often are the backbone

of telecollaborative projects because they allow learners from all areas of the world to

interact, express their ideas, share data, and contribute to the group project (Aviv, Erlich,

Ravid, & Geva, 2003). It is also an affordable solution that allows different learners from

different socio-economic backgrounds to access information without restrictions of time,

location, and online access speed (Hron & Friedrich, 2003). Other communication

methods that are also used are directed communication through phone messages,

synchronous chats, online collaborative workspaces such as Wikis, and

videoconferencing. Communication in a telecollaborative project is a vital element that is

ongoing from the beginning of the process until the very end.

The needs and resources of each classroom participating in a project determine

other uses of ICT. Computer software and hardware are used to compose, record, and

analyze data collected from local sources and remote locations. Students may record

53


written messages, collections of data, digital pictures, video, recorded audio, and other

forms of information to use on their own project or to contribute to various phases of the

finished project. The resulting project is facilitated by the use of ICT publishing and

creation software to record written documents, or presentations that are often given

through the use of products such as PowerPoint, PDF files, Mp3 files, video, or other

digital formats that can be shared and transmitted online. Even though a variety of

software tools can be used to record, publish, and present final products, those final

product formats are often restricted to file formats that are cross platform and can be

viewed on both Windows and Macintosh operating systems.

ICT becomes a vital tool at every stage of the learning experience. Moursund

(2005) argued that ICT can be seen as a powerful agent of change in that it can provide us

with mental tools by which we can extend our abilities to produce and process

information. This is similar to Jonassen, Carr, and Yueh’s (1999) description of

computer-based technologies and programs that foster and facilitate critical thinking as

“mindtools.” Examples of ICT functioning as a mindtool can be seen in the way that

Internet facilitates global communication and a person’s mental facilities to search,

record, and retrieve information can be extended by the use of ICT.

Teacher Expectations for Telecollaborative Project Work

There appears to be a direct relationship between teachers establishing strong

expectations for students and their achievement of successful learning (Bamberg, 1994;

Cotton 1989; Good & Brophy, 1980; Schilling & Schilling, 1999). Yet it is less clear how

the expectations teachers have for a program of learning or a specific methodology such

as telecollaborative project work affect the actual experiences of students as well as a

54


teacher’s decision to use telecollaborative project work in the future with students.

Rogers, et al. (1990) found that the relationship between teacher expectations and

frustrations often were directly related to the learning curve necessitated by using new

technologies in the classroom. While investigating the use of telecomputing technology,

Rogers, et al. determined that teachers’ expectations are often tied to how they believe it

should work and what they hope to accomplish by using it in the classroom. As an

example, teachers often experience frustration because they are expecting to quickly

establish their presence on a learning network and receive instantaneous and meaningful

responses. The result is often that teachers become disappointed when they do not receive

a reply or a telecollaborative experience does not follow their preplanned scenario.

Harris (1995) found that teachers working in an online ICT environment often

bring their expectations of working in the traditional K-12 teaching environment and

attempt to apply them to the telecollaborative environment. This often caused problems

because teachers who are experienced with the use of telecomputing tools expect brief,

quick, text-based conversations on a frequent basis, whereas a teacher accustomed to the

pace of a traditional class may only seek to communicate on a weekly basis. Harris

further found that there was often a conflict between a teacher who was an experienced

facilitator of telecollaborative work and a teacher who was a newcomer to the process.

Experienced teachers were often frustrated by the slow pace and tended to make negative

assumptions regarding the commitment and dedication of their less experienced

colleagues.

Other examples of the relationship between teachers’ expectations for

telecollaborative work and their actual experiences and evaluations can be found with

55


teachers who work internationally on language and cultural projects. Investigations with

language classes that telecollaborate have revealed that, before teachers begin a project-

work experience, they do establish very definite expectations as part of their learning

objectives for students (Ware, 2005). Ware found that when these expectations were not

met, they caused tensions between students and caused teachers to re-evaluate the

experience for their students. American teachers expecting German students to

telecollaborate in the area of language study found their expectations for constant

communication and commitment to project work were a source of disappointment (Belz,

2002). O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) found that teacher expectations for telecollaborative

work often included references to the types of communication patterns they expected to

encounter. Failure to fit into these patterns yielded a phenomena of ten different patterns

they termed “failed communications.” Lastly, Basharina (2007) speculated that teacher’s

expectations often were influenced by cultural factors and that these had the potential to

lead to tensions and misunderstandings that hindered intercultural learning.

Reasons for Students and Teachers To Engage in Telecollaborative Project Work

The most reported benefits of telecollaborative project work are very much

aligned with the benefits of the three major components that comprise the methodology:

the use of project-based learning, ICT, and telecollaboration. I will discuss studies that

support the benefits of each one below.


The effectiveness of project-based learning has been studied in a range of

educational contexts. These include major educational research as well as teacher

testimonials (Moursund, et al., 1997). In K-12 educational settings, the use of project-

56


based learning activities appears to be effective in increasing student motivation,

improving student problem-solving, media research skills, collaboration, resource

management skills, and higher order thinking skills (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001; Wrigley,

1998). These findings were further confirmed by Thomas (2000) in a detailed assessment

of project-based learning where he found gains in student achievement, problem-solving

capabilities, understanding of subject matter, as well as other specific skills that were

directly related to project-based learning tasks.

Many school systems have become concerned with how students function in

society and have established educational goals to teach students how to work individually

and in teams to carry out complex tasks (Goldman, 1995). Since real-world problems are

almost always interdisciplinary, the use of project-based activities have also been found

to be an excellent methodology for helping students learn how to work together to carry

out complex, interdisciplinary projects (Katz & Chard, 1989; Markham et al., 2003).

ICT Use

Comprehensive assessments of project-based learning research and evaluations of

K-12 instruction, identified evidence of learning gains from combining project-based

learning with the use of educational technology (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Ryser, Beeler,

& McKenzie, 1995). Technology appeared to provide students with increased skills in the

areas of research, organization, language, creativity, and project construction tools that

can be vital to successful project work.

Studies conducted by the Department for Education and Skills in England have

found that the effects of using ICT for teaching and learning can be measured and do

have a positive impact on student success in achieving school standards (Pittard,

57


Bannister, & Dunn, 2003). They further appear to increase student skills in the areas of

motivation, presentation, questioning, problem solving, information handling, and

techniques of modeling (BECTA, 2002). Learning practices that use ICT also empower

students and teachers to develop learning skills for the 21st century (Law, Lee, & Chow,

2002).

According to Schulz-Zander et al. (2002), the combination of problem-oriented,

project-based learning with ICT further develops student collaboration skills. The authors

concluded that cooperation among students was a major benefit of combining problem-

oriented, project-based learning with Internet and communication technology. In fact,

they remarked that international cooperation based on the Internet would not have

occurred in the learning situations they studied without the use of information and

communication technology. Schulz-Zander et al. also found that student motivation and

efforts to achieve appeared to increase through the use of collaborative project work.

Telecollaborative Project-based Learning

Naujokaitis (2002) identified four categories of benefit that learners can gain

through their participation in project-based telecollaboration. They are interpersonal

exchanges, information collection and analysis, problem solving, and publication.

According to Naujokaitis, each of these categories contains experiences that can be

utilized to develop a specific subset of real-world skills in learners. The category of

interpersonal exchange contains skills by which learners can discover how to use various

technology-managed communication tools such as e-mail, electronic bulletin boards,

listservs, and newsgroups. Learners also learn the rules of online communication through

acceptable use and netiquette policies.

58


Skills that learners can gain from the category of information collection and

analysis center around tasks associated with developing electronic library skills. Learners

also are exposed to specific skills such as how to navigate informational resources on the

Internet, develop search strategies, and evaluate information gained through electronic

sources. In addition, learners develop skills in preparing information through the use of

word processing, databases, and spreadsheets. Skills learned in the category of problem

solving involve learners gaining evaluation, collaboration, creative thinking, and respect

for others as they work together on solving problems and creating solutions to problems

(Naujokaitis, 2002).

The category of publication includes skills directly related to creating content to

be displayed on the Internet or in some other digital format. Some areas learners are

exposed to include effective Web page design, digital images, graphics editing, Website

programming as well as the many specialized areas of digital presentation development.

Naujokaitis (2002) concluded that outside this category framework, telecollaborative

project-based learning also teaches learners “constructive criticism, time management,

and humility” (p. 3).

When telecollaborative project work was investigated in different types of

learning environments, it provided measurable benefits for students. Students in an

asynchronous online environment displayed evidence of newly constructed knowledge

through their writings and project work (Jamaludin & Lang, 2006). Teenagers who

worked in an inquiry-based project that was facilitated by the use of ICT to solve real-

world problems grew significantly in their confidence in collaborating online and in using

online communication tools for problem solving, developing mentoring strategies, and

59


gaining cultural knowledge (Wang, Poole, Harris, & Wangemann, 2001). Furthermore,

when students work together in teams to create projects using a project-based learning

methodology, they maximize their computer and collaboration skills (Asan & Haliloglu,

2005). Research conducted by Harrison (1999), Dooling (2000), and Venville, Wallace,

Rennie, and Malone (2000) further support the concept that ICT-assisted project-based

learning promotes the development of collaboration skills in students.

Telecollaborative project work can also be a catalyst for changing the way

teachers design instructional programs. Teachers who participated in a technology and

project-based reform effort called Co-NECT increased their use of computers for

educational activities, were more likely to use various software programs, involved their

students in more Internet projects, and promoted more constructivist student activities

(Becker, Wong, & Ravitz, 1999).

Canada's SchoolNet GrassRoots Program. The Conference Board of Canada

(2001) conducted research on Industry Canada's SchoolNet GrassRoots Program that

offered funding to schools for the creation of innovative, Internet-based interactive

learning projects. Research on four case studies on projects undertaken by Canadian

schools that were completed under the SchoolNet GrassRoots Program found that

GrassRoots projects were “enormously powerful vehicles for engaging and focusing

teachers and students in a shared learning experience centered on the use of Information

and Communications Technology to accomplish curriculum objectives” (Kitagawa, 2001,

p. 11). Among the specific findings derived from the case studies were categories of

benefits for teachers and students as well as those that appeared to benefit both.

60


In the report issued by the Conference Board of Canada (2001), students were

seen as progressing from being passive receivers of information to active learners who

were visibly engaged in building knowledge through the applications of skills and content

needed to accomplish project work. Another benefit for students was the exposure to

various uses of technology they gained from the use of computers as an aid to learning

and communicating. An overall benefit gained by students through the creation of real

products for their projects were preparation skills for transition into the “world of work”

(Kitagawa, 2001, p. 16).

The report by the Conference Board of Canada (2001) also found that teachers

experienced a sense of empowerment through their ability to choose and construct

learning environments for students that were built around the integration of student

project work into curricular areas. Teachers found themselves consulting and

collaborating with their peers across different subjects and disciplines in order to better

integrate learning. An effective pedagogical practice employed by teachers was an

increase in reflection and examination of their teaching processes (Conference Board of

Canada).

Both teachers and students developed ICT skills through their practical

application in the teaching in learning objectives associated with project work (Kitagawa,

2001). ICT was not seen as an abstract concept, separate subject, or curriculum add-on.

Through project collaboration and the use of ICT, teachers and students found themselves

simultaneously developing each other’s ICT skills. Teachers and students saw ICT as

having unique qualities that could be used to design, complete, communicate, and

showcase their accomplishments (Conference Board of Canada, 2001). A final benefit for

61


teachers and students was that they became empowered and aware of their role as

contributors to the global community of learners. They gained insight into seeing

themselves as “a potential resource for gathering and interpreting data, sharing and

processing information, growing knowledge, building collaborative alliances and

generating useful and broadly applicable insights” (Conference Board of Canada, p. 14).

The evaluative conclusion of the Grassroots online collaborative project was that

it enhanced

innovative capacity in the classroom by encouraging collaboration among teachers and between schools, between teachers and students, and between students at different grade levels and in different geographical locations. The result of this collaboration is the growth of teaching and learning exchange networks, which are the pathways of the new “connected” culture (Conference Board of Canada, p. 17).

Three of the most widely described benefits of telecollaborative project-based

learning activities for students focused on the benefits students displayed in their writing

skills, increased multicultural awareness by being exposed to children from different

cultures, and greater competence with real-world ICT skills (Fabos, & Young, 1999;

Hutchings & Standley, 2000). Other observed benefits that appeared in the literature

highlighted the international component and potential exposure to global cultures that is

often associated with telecollaborative project work. Burke, Beach, and Isman, (1997)

found that telecollaborative experiences allowed students to extend their learning outside

of the school environment. In an examination of the potential benefits of telecollaborative

project work, Harris (2002) promoted the idea that telecollaboration was an effective

methodology to promote collaborative work among students with different backgrounds.

O’Dowd (2003) identified that a major benefit of telecollaborative project work that

occurred between students in different countries was that it often exposed students to the

62


cultures of other students through communication and collaborative work. Through her

many years of work facilitating projects between classrooms in different countries,

Andres (2002) found that telecollaboration provided students with intellectual and

emotional growth through interaction with other cultures. In a presentation on the far-

reaching effects of telecollaborative project work, Gragert (2002) emphasized that

telecollaboration empowers students to take the lead in their own understanding of global

perspectives. Furthermore, Brown (2000) saw telecollaborative project work as having

the potential for students to extend the influence of the school into the local and world

community.

Some strengths of telecollaborative project-based learning are that it provides

learners with an experience to gain knowledge and skills within a project area as well as

the opportunity to improve general problem solving skills, learning strategies, and ICT

skills. Wang, et al. (2001) saw the project phase of telecollaboration as an opportunity for

students to experience and develop different problem solving strategies. In addressing the

potential for technology skill development, Stuhlmann and Taylor (1998) saw

telecollaboration as a way for students to utilize ICT for communication, presentation,

and product creation in a real world environment. When learners telecollaborate using

project-based learning, they further extend their opportunity to connect to a global wealth

of digital and human resources usually not accessible in traditional classrooms.

Criticisms of Telecollaborative Project Work

Many of the criticisms regarding the value and use of technology in classrooms

could also be aimed at the use of telecollaborative project work (Berenfield, 1996b).

Even though the issues are varied, the core of the debate centers on whether or not the use

63


of technology actually promotes greater learning than traditional teaching methods

(Clark, 2001; Cuban, 2001). There are some researchers who further question the value of

using telecollaborative project work and see the reported benefits as being more a matter

of “rhetoric” than actual “reality” (Fabos & Young, 1999, p. 217). Common criticisms

focus on concerns that: (a) much of the research surrounding the use of

telecommunications exchange projects has produced contradictory results, (b) the

identification of skill benefits has been overgeneralized and nebulous, (c) the discourse

regarding the benefits of global education has been overstated, (d) organizations that

promote online collaborative packaged programs are motivated by corporate profit more

than educational benefits, and (e) local communities of learning may hold more value for

students than global communities (Berenfield, 1996a; Fabos & Young, 2004).

Kenway (1998) expressed a further criticism regarding the value of the

information that students exchange when he asked: “What is the quality of the

information and the ‘interactions’ offered to students by interactive technologies? What

sorts of knowledge are they offered? Whose knowledge is it and what does it say to them

about who they are, how they should behave, and what they should value?” (p. 88).

There are further issues that have arisen regarding the use of telecollaborative

project work with students engaged in international learning partnerships. In fact,

telecollaboration may not always produce the results that educators are seeking (Kramsch

& Thorne, 2002). Tensions can occur when students take opposite positions in discussion

about cultural values (O’Dowd, 2003). When communication differences among students

do occur they can drastically interfere with project work. These difficulties are often very

difficult to resolve because personal relationships have not been firmly established

64


between students in partnering schools (Belz, 2001; 2003). Furthermore, students have

been known to display avoidance strategies and simply stop communicating (Ware,

2003).

In a report that addressed issues associated with the problems of classes working

together, Harris (2000) identified even more specialized concerns of telecollaborative

project work. Some common problems are that results have at times shown that classes

have a low success rate with project completion. Other problems that have been identified

are generally associated with “the learning activity’s larger context, planning process, or

logistical specifics” (Harris, 2000, p. 59). Many of the issues often are associated with the

actual amount of time needed to communicate and complete projects. Very often teachers

underestimate the amount of time needed to fully complete a telecollaboration activity.

Telecollaborative project work has been known at times to become more of a frustrating

experience for students and teachers than a beneficial learning experience (Harris, 2000).

As teachers have been encouraged to integrate the use of ICT technology in the

classroom, there is a growing concern as to how teachers actually use the technology and

whether or not it actually promotes student learning. Investigations have found that

teachers can be classified as to their level of technology use. Teachers at the beginning

levels tend to use technology to support their current modes of instruction while teachers

in more advanced levels promote innovative uses of technology such as telecollaborative

project work that allow students to create projects that integrate multiple uses of ICT.

Teachers do encounter barriers and, whether real or perceived, they will affect a teachers’

ability to integrate the use of technology in a classroom. In any investigation of

65


telecollaborative project work, it will be important to understand their level of technology

integration and any barriers the teachers encounter.

Teacher expectations have a direct relationship to student learning, but the role

that teacher expectations play in affecting the experiences of students in telecollaborative

project work is not clear. It is possible that some teachers may have shaped students’

experiences based on past accounts and testimonials from other teachers as well as the

criticisms they have heard. The expectations that teachers bring to telecollaborative work

may arise from their level of technology integration, perceived barriers to using

technology, experience with using various forms of ICT, as well as learning objectives

that they have established for their students before they begin their online experience.

Some expectations have been shown to lead to frustrations and outcomes that were not

considered before project work began. It is the search to understand these expectations,

experiences, and perceptions that will form the core of this investigation.

There are many factors that contribute to shaping teachers expectations for a

telecollaborative experience. My inquiry will seek to investigate major areas that have

been identified in the literature. Teachers who integrate technology in their classrooms

generally understand the benefits and limitations; I will be looking to see how a teacher’s

prior experience and comfort level with using ICT influences their expectations and

participation. Since various uses of ICT often play a major part in the telecollaboration

process, I will be looking to see if this plays any part in changing their expectations as the

process evolves during the course of a project. Previous investigations have identified

benefits associated with the use of ICT, project-based learning, and telecollaborative

project-based learning. I will be looking to determine which benefits teachers expect to

66


gain as they engage in project work. Furthermore, I will be seeking to determine if

teachers actually realize their expectations during their experience and to what extent

these expectations characterize their overall experience and contribute to their future

participation. Lastly, there have been various criticisms directed toward telecollaborative

project work. I will be seeking to understand if the issues and concerns expressed in the

criticisms actually manifest themselves and affect teachers’ expectations, actual

experience, and future participation.

Ethnographic Analysis of Telecollaborative Project Work

The current state of telecollaborative project work has evolved through the efforts

of dedicated educators, researchers, advocates, and support organizations. There is much

literature on why teachers should engage their students in telecollaborative project work

and many guidelines on what the experience should be like. What remain to be

understood are expectations, attitudes, processes, strategies, and outcomes that teachers

and student engage in during these projects.

My investigation focused on examining a group of teachers who were involved in

a telecollaborative project called Learning Circles. I sought to understand all the factors

that have brought them to want to participate in this telecollaborative project experience.

Teachers engaged their students in this learning experience for a variety of reasons and

there were expectations they were hoping to gain for their students through these learning

experiences. These expectations played a role in how they approached, perceived, and

evaluated every aspect of their project experience. I sought to understand their

expectations and experiences as they participated in an actual project. I anticipated that

some would see their expectations fulfilled, others would change their expectations, and

67


still others would not realize them at all. In the end teachers would either decide this was

a valuable experience for students or not something that fulfilled their educational needs.

It was their expectations, experience, and conclusions that I sought to understand.

68


CHAPTER 3: METHOD

This chapter provides a description of the research design and approach. Details

of the study’s research method are presented that include the conceptual framework, the

research focus, data collection strategies, data analysis procedures, as well as the

limitations of the methods used in this study.

Research Purpose and Questions

The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that lead teachers to use

telecollaborative project work with students. The significance of the findings will be a

better understanding of explicit and implicit expectations that motivate educators to

engage in telecollaborative project work, and the benefits teachers find for their students

and themselves. Understanding the experiences of teachers as they participate in

telecollaborative project work will help to address why some teachers find value in their

experience and continue participation while others abandon the practice. This

investigation might also reveal new strategies or practices that will be of value to

organizations that support telecollaboration.

This study was guided by investigating the following research questions:

1. What are the expectations teachers have for their students and themselves that

motivate them to use telecollaborative project work in a K-12 school setting?

a. How do these expectations change over time as teachers and students

participate in a telecollaborative project?

b. What do teachers believe they and their students have gained by


69


c. What are the suggestions of teachers on changes that could be made to

telecollaborative project experiences to improve their future participation?

2. To what degree do teachers’ level of technology integration, use of project-

based learning methods, and collaboration, as well as the obstacles and enablers

they work with affect their expectations and participation in a telecollaborative

project?

3. What are the experiences of teachers as they use telecollaborative project

work in a K-12 school setting that influence their future participation?

Research Design and Method

The design of the study was exploratory and descriptive (Yin, 1993, 2003) in

order to capture the experiences of the participants and identify the factors that influenced

their decisions. In this study the phenomenon was the experience of teachers using

telecollaborative project work in the context of an online project called Learning Circles.

The case being studied (or bounded system) (Creswell, 1998) was a group of 57 teachers

who sought to participate in an online project. There were three levels of organization

represented by these teachers. First, the teachers represented, collectively, all the teachers

who were participating in one session of Learning Circles on the International Education

and Resource Network (iEARN). As noted in Figure 1, Learning Circles is just one of

many projects sponsored by iEARN. The second level of organization occurred when

teachers chose one of four separate project themes. The third level was that of the

individual Circles that consisted of six to eight classrooms grouped around a common

project theme and age classification of students (elementary, middle, or high school).

70


Figure 1. The Levels of Organization of iEARN Project Work

71

LearningCircles

IEARNProjects

Lawsof

Life

ArtMiles

Daffodiland

TulipProject

FolkTales

Project

MyCountry

PEARLProject

Placesand

Perspectives

ComputerChronicles Learning

CirclesProjects

Mindworks

MyHero

Placesand

PerspectivesClassrooms

United States

United States

Morocco

Slovenia

United States

United States


Those teachers engaged in Learning Circles for one session were used to provide

data on expectations and outcomes. In addition to this data, one Circle was identified to

explore more deeply the process of interactions both between the schools and in the

classrooms. Each level of study informed the other. The timeframe was a session of the

Learning Circles project that began in September of 2008 and ended in January of 2009.

My approach to investigating the research questions was to conduct an

instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) to provide insight into understanding how teachers’

expectations influenced their experience and participation in telecollaborative project

work. A case study is an inquiry approach that investigates a contemporary phenomenon

within its real-life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are

not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1981). A

typical Learning Circles project goes through different phases and presents many

challenges from beginning to completion that are very closely linked to the context of

accomplishing telecollaborative project work. It was anticipated that since the experience

of each of the participants would change over the course of their involvement with a

project, a prolonged inquiry into their expectations, successes, and challenges would

provide a rich source of information (Patton, 2002).

The teachers who were involved in this study represented classrooms from

various regions around the world and were brought together by their desire to participate

in a telecollaborative experience. This investigation focused on the experience of a small

project group but utilized the larger group of teachers to confirm and triangulate findings

that emerged. The design of this study allowed for an investigation of how their

expectations for participation initially developed, progressed, changed, and were realized

72


(or not realized). It also provided insight into how their actual experiences shaped their

decision about whether to participate in the future or not.

Research Focus and Paradigm

The theoretical framework of research influences the way it is studied and

interpreted, this is often called the paradigm of the research (Mertens, 2005). For this

study, the paradigm followed an interpretivist framework for the following reasons: (a)

the purpose was to understand the world of a specific group of teachers; (b) the findings

from the study were the result of the interactions between the researcher and the

participants in the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Highlen & Finley, 1996); and (c) since

the focus of a study was on understanding and interpretation, an interpretivist framework

allowed me to apply personal experience and prior knowledge rather than just being a

detached observer (Carson et al., 2001). I approached this study from a constructivist

viewpoint with the understanding that there were multiple realities and that no one

construct of reality could hold more value than another (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Patton,

2002). Each construct of reality presented in this study represented the understanding and

viewpoints of the participants in the study (Merriam, 1998).

My case study was built using layers of information to provide a foundation for

qualitative analysis and reporting (Patton, 2002). The goal of the descriptions in this

study was to provide the reader with potential points of commonality or connection that

could be used to establish transferability of understanding (Eisner, 1991; Erlandson,

Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). I sought to follow Patton’s (2002) idea that a study

based on “information-rich samples and designs” would allow for extrapolations that

73


were “modest speculations on the likely applicability of findings to other situations under

similar, but not identical, conditions” (p. 584).

Data Collection

Research Site and Participants

The research site for this study was an online environment that was centered on a

telecollaborative project called Learning Circles. iEARN sponsors the Learning Circles

project for two sessions a year: September to January and January to May. This

investigation took place during the September 2008 to January 2009 session. The

Learning Circles project was open to all iEARN members, domestic and international.

All communication was in English. Teachers expressed interest in the project by

completing an online registration form (see Appendix A) that asked for teacher contact

information, class size, age level of students, and project interest. This information was

collected in a central database that was maintained by iEARN. The Learning Circles

Project Coordinator used this information to develop cooperative working groups called

Circles. Once a Circle of 6 to 8 classrooms was formed, participants communicated with

each other by sending messages to an online forum that had been specifically created for

their Circle. These forums automatically distributed posted messages to every other

member of the Circle. Some participants also chose to use the online forum to access

their messages, post messages, post documents, or locate a past message. All messages

posted to the Circle forum were saved for the duration of the project and then archived

for potential access after the project was finished. As the Learning Circles Coordinator, I

had access to all the messages that were posted through the iEARN online forums.

74


Participants for my research were sought from the group of teachers who signed

up for the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles. Based on a pilot

study I conducted during the January to May 2008 session of Learning Circles and my

prior experience with Learning Circles, I believed that I would find participants who were

new to telecollaborative project work and those who had experience. In order to seek

interested participants I posted a notice in iEARN newsletters, the Learning Circles

Website, and iEARN registration Web page stating that I was conducting research on

Learning Circles beginning in September 2008. I also indicated that there would be

incentives for participants who fully participated in all phases of the research. These

incentives included a drawing for an Apple iPod for the small group and another iPod for

the larger group of teachers. In all locations, I thoroughly announced that all participation

in the research was voluntary and that a person could still fully participate in Learning

Circles while not participating in the research. I also made it clear that the lack of

participation in the research would not affect anyone’s ability to participate in the

Learning Circles project in any way.

Data collection for the small group case study and large group survey study were

limited to teachers who participated in the September 2008 to January 2009 session of

Learning Circles and were iEARN members. Since Learning Circles is sponsored by

iEARN, teachers were required to be members in order to enroll in the project. Based on

my past experience with the Learning Circles project, I anticipated that the September

2008 through January 2009 Learning Circles registration process would yield 60 to 75

teachers who would be interested in participating in telecollaborative project work. The

actual number of teachers who volunteered for the first online survey was 57 out of 61

75


potential participants. These teachers represented classrooms that fell into three general

age levels. At each age level a classroom had the opportunity to choose one broad project

category theme for participation. Table 4 illustrates the choices for each classroom:

Table 4

Learning Circle Age Levels and Project Choices

Choice of Age Level Choice of Projects

Elementary

Middle School

High School

Computer Chronicles

Places and Perspectives

Mindworks

My Hero

The choice of which Circle projects actually run is always based on the number of

participants who sign up for each project. Participants were asked to give a second and

third choice in case their first choice did not have enough interested participants. The

actual projects that ran during the session covered by the research are presented in Table

5.

76


Table 5

Actual Projects for the September 2008 Session of Learning Circles

Learning Circles Projects

Elementary Places and Perspectives (also included participants interested in Computer Chronicles)

Middle School Places and Perspectives 1

Middle School Places and Perspectives 2

Middle School Computer Chronicles (also included participants interested in Mindworks)

Middle School My Hero (also included Elementary classrooms)

High School Places and Perspectives 1

High School Places and Perspectives 2

High School Computer Chronicles

High School Mindworks

High School My Hero

For my investigation, I identified the following criteria as being desirable for an

investigative group. Since I was seeking a purposive sample, I was looking for a Learning

Circles group that would typify the experience of most participants (Riel, 1992b). I was

seeking a group that was (a) on an elementary or middle school level, (b) had some

diversity in country representation (typically for middle school, two classrooms from

North American and 4 to 6 classrooms from various regions around the world or 4 to 5

classrooms from North America and two classrooms from other countries for elementary

school, and (c) was a mix of new and experienced participants.

The Learning Circles group that was selected for the project was a group of seven

participants who registered for either the elementary Computer Chronicles or Places and

Perspectives Circles. Five of the teachers were from the United States, one teacher was

77


from Morocco, and the other teacher was from Slovenia. Five of the teachers were new to

Learning Circles and had limited experience with telecollaborative work. The other two

teachers were teachers who had extensive experience with Learning Circles.

Role of the Researcher

In the context of a case study, building trust between the participants and the

researcher is a major concern (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This is something that often takes

a great deal of time to achieve. I have been a participant is the Learning Circles project

since 1988 and have an established role as the Coordinator for the Learning Circles

project for the past three years. I believed that my immersion in the project provided me

with unique access to all aspects of the project. Also, the trust and reputation I have

gained with the participants allowed me to observe and question participants with a high

level of openness and honesty.

As the Coordinator of the Learning Circles project, my contact with participants

could be characterized as mainly passive. Generally, my primary role is to organize the

Circle groups according to grade level and project choices indicated by the participants

when they register. Once the Circles are determined, my role is to send out project update

messages and provide online resources for all participants. I do not contact participants

directly unless they ask for specific help or assistance.

Schatzman and Strauss (1973) contended that a researcher should carefully

examine the role he/she plays in the observation process. Creswell (1998) also identified

some concerns regarding researchers conducting studies in which they were a part of the

environment. Considering all this, I believed that it was best to continue my role as

Project Coordinator and passively observe the interaction and exchange of messages that

78


transpired between participants. When I needed to act as a part of the online project

process, I was careful to make sure that it was initiated by a participant request.

Sources of Data

In order to build my case study for this inquiry, I used surveys, interviews, and

message exchanges (Hoepfl, 1997). This study began with an identification of

participants through the use of a Pre-Survey that included participant background

information, self-ratings on their use of project-based learning, and responses to open-

ended questions. Since I was using a case-within-a-case methodology, two groups were

determined. The larger case was comprised of all 59 participants who volunteered to

participate in the research. From this larger case, a smaller group of seven teachers was

identified to participate in one Circle experience. It was this single Learning Circle group

that was the focus of the smaller case study.

I then proceeded to conduct semi-structured interviews with the seven participants

in the small group case study. After this I analyzed messages that were exchanged among

participants. These messages were sent as emails posted in the online discussion forums,

documents attached to the email messages, or media files posted in iEARN’s online

collaboration forum. Some participants preferred to send messages as text emails and

other participants preferred to send their messages as documents that were attached to

emails. They used documents because these allowed them to compose longer messages

offline and minimize their time when they were connected to the Internet. The small case

study group also participated in all the online surveys that were given to the large group.

This survey data collected from the small case study group provided a further source of

information.

79


In addition to this primary source of information, I also utilized the larger group

of participants through the use of surveys, email messages, messages that were posted in

the online discussion forums, documents that were attached to email messages, and

documents that were posted in iEARN’s online collaboration forum to cross check

patterns, categories, and themes that emerged and provide another layer of information.

Surveys

In general, the purpose of the surveys used in this study was to collect a

combination of qualitative and quantitative information (Creswell, 2003). All participants

who registered for the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles were

sent an invitation to participate email message (see Appendix B) that contained a link to

an initial online Pre-Survey (see Appendix C). Consent for participating in the initial Pre-

Survey and the case studies was sought in the beginning of process. The main page of the

Pre-Survey contained information on the study and listed the rights of participants.

Participants provided their email address to confirm consent. All participants for this

study were volunteers and had the opportunity to withdraw at any time. When

information was reported in the final report of this study, generic titles such as Teacher

A, Teacher B, and so forth were used for participating teachers in order to protect the

identity of the participants and to comply with the Human Subjects Protocol of Lehigh

University.

Through the use of the initial Pre-Survey, I collected information on teacher

backgrounds, their reasons for participating in Learning Circles, and their desired

learning outcomes. I also used the information collected through the initial survey to

develop descriptive statistics, identify teachers’ level of technology integration,

80


determine teachers’ level of project-based learning use, and to provide a basis for

determining participants for my case study Circle. Interim Surveys (see Appendix D)

were administered to all participants at week five and week ten. An announcement (see

Appendix E) was sent at the end of the project asking participants to provide an overall

assessment of their experience. After this a Post Survey (see Appendix F) was

administered at the conclusion of the project.

On the interim and final surveys, each participant was asked to rate his/her

expectations using a Likert-type scale, whether or not his/her expectations changed, and

his/her overall experience. Participants were also given the opportunity to write in

additional information or to provide comments. The purpose of this data collection was to

track any changes that occurred over the course of the session.

Interviews

After participants were identified for the small group case study, a consent email

(see Appendix G) was sent to provide the participants with a list of activities and

estimated time commitments I would be seeking from their participation. An initial round

of interviews followed this. A protocol was developed for interviewing each case study

participant that consisted of asking a predetermined set of questions (see Appendix H)

and then following up these questions with further probing questions based on the

responses of the participants (Merriam, 1998). The questions were grouped into three

discussion threads that paralleled the themes developed for the research questions. All

interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Each transcript was then saved in a

separate word processing file.

81


Three methods were made available to the participants in order to provide them

with an option that best allowed them to communicate and express themselves. In order

of preference, I first sought to have a person-to-person interview through the use of a

phone interview or Skype communication software. If neither of these options was viable

for a participant, I then decided I could provide the participant with a written document

and allow them to provide answers in written form. All the participants who participated

in the interview process chose either a phone or Skype person-to-person interview.

The content of the initial case study interviews and messages provided the basis

for future follow-up interviews. Additional update interviews were conducted with the

case study participants on an as needed basis through the use of email messages and

occasional telephone interviews. Case study participants were given the opportunity to

talk about their experiences, successes, and frustrations. They could also assess their

expectations and readjust them if necessary.

Message Exchanges

The messages I examined were those sent by teachers as part of the Learning

Circles online exchange of information. The content of these messages ranged from

anything such as teachers describing themselves, their family, their students, and their

working environment to teachers giving progress reports on the projects sponsored by

their students. The purpose in examining these messages was to look at what the

participants were actually saying and describing to other participants. In the past, I have

found that the teachers in Learning Circles share information about themselves, their

schools, and their project experience through these messages. I was looking to see how

frequently teachers sent messages, and I analyzed the content of the messages in order to

82


understand their experience from their perspective and through their own words (Hoepfl,

1997).

In addition to actually examining the content of the messages exchanged by

teachers, as the Coordinator for the Learning Circles project, I was also able to utilize two

of the four strategies that Hoeplf (1997) identified for gathering information though

observation: passive observation and limited interaction. First, I was able to passively

examine the interaction and exchange of messages that transpired between participants.

This included communication and behavioral patterns. This information was then used to

report on what actually happened during a Learning Circles experience. Observations of

teachers’ posting behavior was used because it held the potential to show agreement or

discrepancies between participants’ expressed thoughts and ideas and their actual

behavior. Examples of this that have occurred during previous sessions of Learning

Circles were seen when participants expressed that they were looking for online

conversations as an expectation for the Learning Circles process, but in actuality they

never initiated conversations or participated in opportunities when they arose.

Secondly, my participation also included limited interaction, but this was only

used when the participants initiated it or if there was a need to clarify information. An

example of this occurred during the pilot study when a teacher dropped out of the

process, but did not inform the group or the Circle facilitator. Participants were curious

about the lack of communication by this participant and asked me about her status. I

notified the participants that the silent participant would not be participating. Even

though I was part of the exchange of information it did not interfere in any way with the

83


progress of the Circle. Furthermore, the question was initiated by the participants and was

a normal action that might occur during telecollaborative project process.

My experience with Learning Circles in the past has shown that groups tend to

exhibit very distinct communication patterns, and that teachers tend to be careful with

messages that are posted for an entire group to read. Adding an examination of message

exchanges to the information collected during interviews helped to provide a layer of

deeper understanding to naturalistic data collection (Hoepfl, 1997). It was these patterns

of communication, subtleties of behavior, as well as a rich description of the learning

environment that were the focus of my message analysis.

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed as it was collected using the grounded theory approach

(Glaser, 1992). My research setting was an online environment that consisted of a group

of teachers exchanging messages and working together to guide students in creating

collaborative project work using ICT. I collected data from the teachers from the

beginning of the project through the use of interviews, surveys, and message analysis.

Constant comparison and theoretical sampling were used to support the discovery of

theory regarding teacher expectations and telecollaboration from my collected data

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Grounded theory was used because I was attempting to derive

theories based on the data I collect from my observations of the small case study

Learning Circles group.

Information regarding teacher expectations was initially collected through

interviews and surveys. I anticipated that teachers would describe various behaviors and

events that they were hoping to achieve through their participation in Learning Circles.

84


As information was collected, I analyzed it for categories of behaviors and events. These

were identified and named using an open coding procedure (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

These codes were compared to look for consistencies and differences of expectations

expressed by the participants. Common language, characteristics, or concepts between

items were used to establish categories. As categories emerged, coding continued until

there were no new categories.

It was anticipated that main categories or dominant themes would emerge from

the initial collection of data. Axial coding was used to develop main categories and their

sub-categories. Selective coding was then used to integrate the main categories and to

develop theoretical frameworks on teacher expectations and their function and impact on

telecollaborative project work (Strauss & Corbin). Further information collected through

the Interim and Post Surveys was also analyzed to confirm that teacher expectations

continued or changed. The Post Survey was used to evaluate whether or not teachers

realized their expectations. Participant messages posted through email and in the online

discussion forums was also analyzed and coded to look for emerging categories of

correspondence that supported comments and behaviors teachers expressed regarding

their expectations.

Data Collection Cycle

The collection of data for this study began with the registration process for

Learning Circles (see Table 6). The start date for the project was established as

September 30, 2008. The registration process for the project began in early August and

was targeted to end on September 15, 2008. In actuality, the registration process was

85


extended into the last two weeks of September in order to accommodate late inquiries.

This has been a common practice in past sessions of Learning Circles.

Table 6

Data Collection and Analysis Cycle

Task Tool or Form WholeGroup

SmallGroup

1. Teacher registration information Online Registration Form

X

2. Administer the initial information teachers survey

Pre-Survey X

3. Identify participants for case study through online survey information

Pre-Survey X

4. Conduct small group interviews Phone and email X

5. Validity checks after each interview session

Phone and email X

6. Follow up interviews as needed Phone and email X

7. Interim update interviews by email and phone every two weeks

Phone and email X

8. Interim survey and open-ended questions at weeks 5 and 10

Interim Surveys I and II

X

9. Record observations of group interactions and patterns of behavior

Email, Online Postings

X

10. Collect examples of online postings, discussions, and email exchanges


X

11. Collect examples of posted student work and finished projects


X

86


12. Administer Post Survey Post Survey X

13. Conduct post interviews (as needed) Phone and email X

One goal in the initial collection of consent and survey data was to find an

elementary or middle school group of teachers who fit the criteria I had established for

my case study Circle. After participants for the case study were identified, they were

contacted by email and again asked to reconfirm their willingness to participate, provide

a telephone contact number, and identify a preferred interview time.

Participants were interviewed using a semi-structured interview question strategy

that was centered on the research questions proposed for this study. These questions were

used as a general guideline for the interviews, but in some instances they were not needed

or did not apply to the participant. As other questions arose based on the responses of the

participants, they were pursued to probe further and provide other interesting avenues of

information. Follow up communication questions and clarifications were conducted using

email messages.

In addition to interviewing participants, I made detailed observations of the actions

and interactions of the participants as they engaged in correspondence with other

participants. All their messages were saved as text files and printed for analysis.

The data gathering cycle was followed by a cycle (see Table 7) that included

validation, further data gathering, and analysis (Stake, 1995). The analysis cycle began

with the initial background information surveys and continued through the interview and

observation phases. Following the interpretivist framework discussed earlier in this

section, the data collection and analysis cycles continued as each new source of

87


information was collected. Participants had the opportunity to report changes in their

thinking and to share additional information during the interviews and surveys. These

proved to be rich sources of information that allowed me to further understand their

experience and thoughts.

Table 7

Analysis Cycle

Tool or Form Task WholeGroup

SmallGroup

Initial Survey Assemble raw case data X X

Organize, classify, and edit raw case data X X

Analyze and code data for concepts, typologies, and themes

X X

Identify patterns, categories, and themes X X

Initial Interviews and Follow-up Interviews

Assemble raw case data X

Organize, classify, and edit raw case data X


X

Identify patterns, categories, and themes X

Interim Update Interviews

Identify consistencies and changes of expectations

X

Interim Surveys Assemble raw case data X X



X X


Identify consistencies and changes of X X

88


expectations

Observations of Participant Behavior

IDENTIFY PATTERNS, CATEGORIES, AND THEMES

X


X

DRAW CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRET FINDINGS ACCORDING TO EMERGING ISSUES

X

Messages Analyze and code data for concepts, typologies, and themes

X

Identify patterns, categories, and themes X


X

Draw conclusions and interpret findings according to emerging issues

X

Post Survey Assemble raw case data X X



X X



X X


X X

Post Interviews Identify consistencies and changes of expectations

X


X

89


Pilot Study

During the January to May 2008 session of Learning Circles I conducted a pilot

study to test various aspects of my proposed research process such as the procedure for

identifying participants for a case study group, the survey instruments, interview process,

and message analysis procedure. I identified a group of 7 participants that matched the

characteristics I was looking for my small case study group. Two of the teachers were

from the United States, one was from Mexico, one from Belarus, and three from Russia.

This group provided me with the diversity of perspectives I was looking for.

The pilot study research group was made up of Middle School teachers who were

interested in participating in the Places and Perspectives group. Since a total of sixteen

teachers registered for Middle School Places and Perspectives I was able to separate the

teachers who volunteered to participate in the research project into their own group. I

named this group Places and Perspectives Middle School Research. The name of the

group had no significance except that made it easier for the participants to distinguish

their online discussion forum from the non-research group that was called Places and

Perspectives Middle School 1. During the pilot study I did not work with the large group,

but I did test the survey instruments they would be using with the small case study group.

I continued in my role as the coordinator for Learning Circles during the pilot

study. There did not appear to be any conflicts between my position as coordinator and

my role as researcher. My position did provide me with complete access to all the

participant messages and it did create a comfort level that allowed the participants to

openly discuss their experience with me. My conversations with the participants led me

to believe that the participants only viewed my role as the coordinator for the project, and

90


did clearly view the project as one of many telecollaborative projects sponsored by

iEARN. They did not see it as my project and they did not necessarily view me as a

member of the iEARN administrative staff. iEARN has many educator-sponsored

projects with educators helping others participate in projects. The fact that I did not

initially create Learning Circles allowed teachers to feel comfortable sharing their views

in an open and honest way. In their responses to my interviews and in their answers to the

surveys, they gave responses that were both supportive and critical. There was no reason

for me to suspect that their responses were anything less than candid and honest.

Testing of Surveys

All surveys were tested during the pilot study. In general, the questions on the

survey elicited the type of information that I was seeking. There were two changes made

to the Pre-Survey that are worth noting. A few wording changes were made on the Pre-

Survey so that the questions distinguished between expectations for students and

teachers. Even though the initial questions used the terms student expectations and

teacher expectations, two of the seven teachers displayed a tendency to always express

their responses in terms of student expectations. It was also decided that more detailed

information should be collected on each teacher’s approach to using project-based

teaching methods in the classroom (see Appendix C). Information collected during the

pilot study suggested that this could be an area of emerging interest, but more

information would be needed to assess the extent to which each teacher was using this

practice with students in association with telecollaborative project work.

In order to collect this information, teachers were asked to rate their classroom

practice on ten different areas associated with the use of project-based learning

91


methodologies. Categories were developed based on the 7 Dimensions Checklist

developed for the Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project sponsored by the San Mateo

County Office of Education (1999) as well as characteristics identified in the literature.

The goal of these questions was to develop a rating and a descriptive profile of teachers

that indicated the degree to which they used teaching practices associated with project-

based teaching methods.

The project-based learning with technology profile was shared with two experts in

this area who had an extensive background with instructing, evaluating, publishing, and

presenting on this topic. Both experts believed that a teacher who scored a number closer

to 50 was more likely to understand and be applying the principles of project-based

learning with technology in their classrooms. Teachers with lower scores would most

likely be using traditional teaching methods and would either not be using project-based

learning with technology or would not be aware of teaching methodologies that used

these principles. The two experts did caution that the profile would best measure teachers

who were specifically using project-based learning with technology rather than teachers

who were just using project-based learning. They also suggested that one of the

identifiers might also be used to indicate if teachers were more inclined to use problem-

based methodologies as opposed to project-based methodologies.

Testing of the Interview Process

The interview process and questionnaire instrument were tested during the pilot

study. An interview was requested of the seven teachers who volunteered for the pilot

case study and the three interview options were presented. One teacher opted for a phone

interview and another for a Skype interview. Three teachers requested a written interview

92


and two teachers did not respond to the request for an interview even though they

indicated they would do so. These two teachers did participate in the online surveys with

no additional prompting. The phone and Skype interviews were successful and allowed

for immediate follow-up questions. Both interviews were recorded with the permission of

the interviewee and were transcribed into a written document. This document was then

sent back to the participant to clarify responses that were unclear on the tape recording

and for member checking. A comparison of the interview gathering procedures showed

that they all allowed me to collect the type of information I was seeking. The responses

collected on the written interview used fewer words, but were more direct and to the

point. The phone and Skype interview yielded more wordy responses, but essentially

yielded the same content. One advantage of the phone and Skype interviews was that

they did allow me to follow interesting responses with instant follow-up questions.

Follow-up questions were also pursued from the written interviews and promptly

answered by the participants. An examination of the goals of the research and the

questionnaire showed a need to add three questions that addressed the participant’s

approach to teaching and familiarity with project-based learning methodologies.

Testing the Message Analysis Process

The message analysis process was tested during the pilot study. These messages

proved to be a rich source of information and the posting behavior of the participants did

reveal patterns of behavior. No changes were made to the process, but it was discovered

that one of the participants opted to post teacher thoughts and gather student work using a

blog hosted on an outside source. Prior to this, all the information that was exchanged

was recorded in the iEARN online Learning Circles discussion forum. The use of the

93


outside information collection source produced some degree of confusion for the

participants and me when messages made reference to comments posted on the blog. I

identified that I would need to make allowances for messages exchanged and posted on

outside resources since it was likely that future teachers may use a blog or a Wiki for

posting and gathering information.

My coding procedures were tested as part of the pilot study I conducted during the

January to May 2008 session of Learning Circles. Clear categories emerged from the

responses given by the participants. Teachers were able to identify specific expectations

they had for their participation for their students and themselves. These included teacher

expectations for their students in the areas of communication and experiencing culture.

Other categories that emerged were in skill development areas such as: ICT use, inquiry

strategies, and project work. The expansion of English language skills was also identified

by teachers from countries where English was not the primary language of students.

Categories of teacher expectations that emerged were teachers seeking ideas from other

teachers in the areas of teaching strategies, project management, and the use of ICT.

Teachers also expressed expectations for developing collegial connections that would last

beyond the end of the project. Teachers, who did not speak English as their primary

language, also had expectations for developing their English language skills by

communicating with other educators. These major expectation themes teachers had for

students and themselves could further be seen in teachers’ correspondence with other

teachers during the course of the project and the exchange of information.

94


Validity and Trustworthiness of the Data

There have been various criticisms leveled at qualitative research suggesting that

it often lacks rigor and does not meet the tests of quality associated with quantitative

research (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Patton (2002) stated, “It all depends on criteria.

Judging quality requires criteria. Credibility flows from those judgments. Quality and

credibility are connected in that judgments of quality constitute the foundation for

perceptions of credibility” (p. 542). In order to enhance the credibility and quality of my

study I have chosen to follow the guidelines presented by Erlandson et al. (1993) who

proposed that trustworthiness and authenticity are two pieces of criteria that can be used

to assess the results and processes of qualitative inquiry. Each of these areas is addressed

below.

Trustworthiness

In order to establish trustworthiness in my research, I identified procedures to

address the indicators identified by Guba and Lincoln (1994). These include: (a)

credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability.

Credibility

Erlandson et al. (1993) called credibility the degree to which a study demonstrates

its “truth value” (p. 29). Patton (2002) stated that credibility in qualitative inquiry

depends on three elements: (a) rigorous methods, (b) the credibility of the researcher, and

(c) the philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry. In order to establish

credibility and rigor, I used the following procedures in my study:

A prolonged engagement with the project site from initial registration to final

completion of all project elements.

95


Careful recording of data that included screening the data for internal and

external consistency.

Use of member checking procedures for interviews and final case reporting in

order to ensure that my understanding was consistent with my participants’

perceptions and experiences.

Triangulation of data, data sources, and methods to bring more depth to the

study.

Transferability

Transferability is a term Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggested was a better fit for

qualitative findings than the term generalization. Part of their reasoning for this was the

understanding that the existence of local conditions makes it extremely difficult to

generalize (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They also identified transferability as the degree to

which a study can help to facilitate a reader’s application of the findings. The

understanding is that the researcher cannot determine the transferability of any given

research, but rather can only provide a sufficient amount of information so that the reader

can determine if the findings have some application to their new situation (Cronbach,

1975). In order to establish transferability, I used the following procedures in my study to

allow readers to make connections and to find characteristics similar to their own

experiences:

Use of thick description and contextual information.

Writing from the participants’ point of view.

Use of purposive sampling to provide realistic background situations.

96


Dependability

Lincoln and Guba (1985) addressed the issue of dependability by declaring that

“Since there can be no validity without reliability (and thus no credibility without

dependability), a demonstration of the former is sufficient to establish the latter”

(p. 316). Schwandt (1997) expressed that one way to ensure dependability in qualitative

inquiry was to make sure that the process was “logical, traceable, and documented” (p.

164). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed that one process that would promote

dependability would be to have reviewers audit both the process and the product of the

research to check for consistency. In order to establish dependability I used the following

procedures in my study:

Logical, traceable, and categorized documentation of data.

Thorough records of data categories, sources, and coding procedures.

The use of an audit trail that could be used for a third party, external review.

Triangulation of data to identify multiple sources of information.

Confirmability

Lincoln and Guba (1985) used the term “confirmability” to “refer to the degree to

which the researcher can demonstrate the neutrality of the research interpretations”

(Hoepfl, 1997, p. 60). Patton (2003) used the term “emphatic neutrality” to suggest that

the established researcher be non-judgmental and seek to report findings in a balanced

manner (p. 50). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed that this evidence of trustworthiness

could be established by providing evidence that the inquiry data could be traced directly

to its source rather than the beliefs, opinions, or expectations of the researcher. To

establish confirmability in my study I established the use of:

97


An audit trail that could be used by a third party, external review to determine

that findings were not based on my biases and preconceptions.

Linking documentation that would allow data and interpretations to be traced

back to actual transcripts.

Documentation of data analysis through the use of database categories and

themes.

Authenticity Criteria

Guba and Lincoln (1994) developed a series of authenticity criteria as an

additional evaluation component for a constructivist inquiry study beyond the

methodological qualities they identified in trustworthiness. The rationale for this was the

belief in constructivist circles that the constructivist paradigm offered new ways to judge

quality (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). Guba and Lincoln (1994)

identified authenticity criteria as (a) fairness, (b) ontological authenticity, (c) educative

authenticity, (d) catalytic authenticity, and (e) tactical authenticity.

Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified fairness as the one indicator of authenticity

that can easily be identified and documented. They interpreted fairness as the degree to

which participants in a study are treated fairly. In my study I sought to establish fairness

by:

Documenting the participants’ voluntary choice to participate at each stage of

the study (initial online survey, personal interviews, and subsequent follow up

interviews).

Providing the participants with adequate time to respond to both online and

verbal questioning sessions.

98


The criteria of ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic

authenticity, and tactical authenticity are less developed in the literature (Guba, 1981;

Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Hipps (1993) offered that authenticity criteria are “primarily

demonstrated through stakeholder testimony and are supported by an audit trail of

evidence of fairness and authenticity” for the “constructivist paradigm offers new lenses

for judging the quality of authentic assessments” (p. 1).

Ontological authenticity refers to all stakeholders in a study being involved in

constructions and interpretation of data (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This is evidenced when

participants become more informed and sophisticated (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and can be

documented through an audit trail of testimonials and narratives of experience (Milne,

2005). Educative authenticity is evidenced when participants develop an awareness and

empathy for the constructions of others (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is best demonstrated

through participants’ testimony of change and documented evidence that displays a

development of understanding (Williams, 2003). Catalytic authenticity results when

participants make a decision based on new knowledge they have gained (Williams,

2003). It can be seen in the action of participants or their resolution to take an action

based on a direct link to their participation in a study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Tactical

authenticity is shown when participants feel empowered to act as a result of being a

participant in a study (Erlandson, et al., 1993). It is best displayed in participant

testimonies.

I considered authenticity criteria during the course of the study and documented

evidence of it as it arose. It was mainly evidenced in participants’ interviews, testimonies,

99


and written messages. I used Guba & Lincoln’s (1989) broad definition that stakeholders

in the study were not just the participants but also the intended audience.

100


CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Introduction

This study was designed to research the expectations teachers have when they

engage in telecollaborative project work. The participants in this study were teachers who

registered for the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles sponsored

by the International Education and Resource Network (iEARN).

There were two layers of data collection conducted for this study. The first layer

gathered data from the larger group of teachers that completed the registration process for

Learning Circles. The second layer followed the progress of one group of Learning

Circles participants in order to provide a more in-depth understanding of their experience.

Chapter 4 will present data collected from the larger group of teachers who enrolled in

Learning Circles and responded to an invitation to participate in four online surveys. The

experience of the small case study group will be presented in Chapter 5.

Survey Sequence and Dates

The Learning Circles phases, survey names, opening dates, and the week of the

Learning Circles calendar are presented in Table 8. The surveys were administered to

coincide with the ending of various phases of the Learning Circles calendar.

This report begins with a profile of the large group participants. This will be

followed by details of the data collected from all four surveys administered to the large

group. Findings from the Pre-Survey will be presented first and the findings from Interim

Survey I, Interim Survey II, and the Post Survey will be presented comparatively in the

order in which they were administered. The findings from the surveys will be reported by

using narrative and table formats.

101


Table 8

Learning Circles Phases, Surveys, Dates, and Week Numbers

Learning Circle Phase Survey Name Date LearningCircle Week

Getting Ready for Learning Circles

Pre-Survey September 28, 2008 1

Opening the Learning Circle

2

Planning Student Projects

Interim Survey I November 3, 2008 4

Exchanging Student Work

Interim Survey II December 12, 2008 6

Organizing the Circle Publication

11

Closing the Learning Circle

Post Survey January 5, 2009 15

The case study experience presented in Chapter 5 will also follow the schedule

presented in Table 8. It will begin with background information and interviews conducted

with the participants. A week-by-week narrative of the actual events that occurred among

the case study participants will follow this. After this, I will provide observations on the

behavior of the case study participants and an overview of the overall experience.

Survey Results

Pre-Survey Responses

An invitation to participate email (see Appendix B) was sent to all teachers that

successfully completed the registration process for Learning Circles in late September.

The first survey was open to the participants on September 28, 2008, three days before

the opening of Learning Circles on September 30th. A three-week time period was

102


scheduled for data collection. A total of 57 out of 61 (94.3%) teachers responded to the

Pre-Survey (see Appendix C). The Pre-Survey consisted of a series of open-ended

questions, a self rating on various aspects of project work with technology, and

participant experience and background information. All results were collected and

downloaded from the Survey Monkey Website (2008).

The Participants

A total of 61 participants registered for the September 2007 to January 2009

session of Learning Circles. Fifty-seven participants (N=57) responded to the invitation

to complete the Pre-Survey. Teachers from 19 different countries participated in this

session of Learning Circles with the largest representation of teachers coming from

Russia (n=17) and the United States (n=11). The representation of countries included

participants from North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The geographic location of

the participants is presented in Table 9.

Table 9

Location of Participants

Country Number of Registrants

(N=61)

Number of Participants

(N=57)

Bahrain 1 1

Belarus 2 1

Canada 5 4

Ghana 3 3

India 1 1

103


Iran 2 2

Iraq 2 2

Kenya 1 1

Morocco 1 1

Oman 1 1

Pakistan 2 2

Romania 1 1

Russia 18 17

Slovenia 5 5

Trinidad and Tobago 1 1

Turkey 1 1

United States 12 11

Uzbekistan 1 1

Zimbabwe 1 1

The participants worked in a variety of traditional and non-traditional educational

institutions. Since many of the participants worked with children in multiple grade levels

they were allowed to make more than one choice when asked to identify the type of

institution where they worked. As an example, some teachers taught students who were

both in elementary and middle school. Other teachers worked with students who were in

middle and high school. This crossover is common in Learning Circles since many of the

104


teachers are educational technology coordinators, media specialists, or foreign language

teachers. Table 10 records the type of educational institutions the participants worked in

as they participated in Learning Circles. Table 11 presents the multiple configurations of

settings teacher worked in and the number of teachers who worked in each setting.

Table 10

Type of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked

Type of Educational Institution Number of Responses

(N=89)

Percentage

Elementary School 18 20.9

Middle School 26 30.2

High School 30 34.9

College or University 6 7.0

Educational Support Program 3 3.5

Other 3 3.5

Table 11

Multiple Configurations of Educational Institution Where Participants Worked

Educational Institution Configurations Number of Responses

(N=57)

Percentage

Elementary School 7 12.3

Elementary/Middle School 3 5.3

Elementary/Middle/High School 5 8.8

105


Elementary/Middle/High School/College orUniversity

1 1.8

Elementary School/College or University 1 1.8

Elementary School/Educational Support Program

1 1.8

Middle School 8 14.0

Middle/High School 8 14.0

Middle/High School/College orUniversity

1 1.8

High School 16 28.1

College or University 3 5.3

Educational Support Program 2 3.5

Elementary/Middle/High School/College orUniversity/ Educational Support Program

1 1.8

The responses indicated that 86.0 % of the teachers worked with students in a

traditional public or private school setting. This was expected since Learning Circles was

designed for teachers in this setting. The Other category were responses from teachers

who worked in non-traditional settings such as language programs, facilitator for special

projects, or schools that included all ages of children in non-structured grade levels.

The participants evaluated how they integrated technology into the classroom.

The most frequent choice at 33.3% was the Appropriation level: “I use technology and

incorporate it constantly into my own work practices and classroom. My instruction

focuses on the use of cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work.” Table 12

106


presents the five choices given to teachers. These five choices correspond to the five

levels identified by the Apple Classrooms Of Tomorrow study (Apple Computers, 1995).

Table 12

How Teachers Integrate Technology in the Classroom

Response Choices Number of Responses

(N=57)

Percentage

I am still learning how to use and integrate technology. (Entry)

11 19.3

I am using technology to support my traditional instructional practices, but have not made any specific changes to those actual practices. (Adoption)

11 19.3

I am thoroughly integrating technology into my traditional classroom practice. I use productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases, graphic programs, presentation tools, and content-specific software. (Adaptation)

11 19.3

I use technology and incorporate it constantly into my own work practices and classroom. My instruction focuses on the use of cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work. (Appropriation)

19 33.3

I am beginning to discover, experiment, and design new uses for technology tools and am creating projects that incorporate multiple technologies. (Invention)

5 8.8

107


At first glance it appeared that this was an advanced group of participants since

the Appropriation level was chosen by more participants than any other. A closer

examination indicated that teachers at an advanced level did not primarily dominate the

group. The combination of the Entry, Adoption, and Adaptation phases showed that

57.9% of the teachers were in a level whereby they were beginning to incorporate the use

of technology into their teaching. This corresponded with the background information

presented in the next session and seems to give a better picture of who the participants

were.

Background Information

Background information was collected to understand the experience and diversity

of the group. The group had an average of 2.5 years of experience with telecollaborative

project work. The range of experience was from 0 to 24 years (R=24). This was a largely

inexperienced group with 64.9 % of the participants indicating they had one or less years

of experience. Of this 64.9 %, 10.5% indicated they had less than one year, and 47.4 %

had no experience at all. Only 5.3% of the participants had 10 or more years of

experience. Table 13 presents the actual numbers and percentages of the participants

experience with telecollaborative project work, ICT, and project-based learning

methodologies.

On average, the participants had 5.2 years of experience with ICT such as e-mail,

online forums, and synchronous chat sessions. The range of experience was from 0 to 16

years (R=16). When it came to experience using ICT, 29.9 % of the participants had one

or less year of experience with 5.3% indicating that they had less than one year and 8.8 %

108


with no experience at all. In the area of ICT use, 15.8 % of the participants had 10 or

more years of experience.

Table 13

Years of Experience with Telecollaborative Project Work, ICT, and Project-based

Learning Methodologies

TelecollaborativeProject Work

ICT Project-based LearningMethodologies

Years of Experience

Number ofRespond-ents(N=57)

Percen-tage


Percen-tage


Percen-tage

No Experience 27 47.4 5 8.8 8 14.0

Less Than One 6 10.5 3 5.3 1 1.8

1 4 7.0 9 15.8 6 10.5

2 4 7.0 5 8.8 6 10.5

3 1 1.8 6 10.5 5 8.8

4 3 5.3 1 1.8 13 22.8

109


5 1 1.8 2 3.5 1 1.8

6 3 5.3 3 5.3 0 0.0

7 2 3.5 6 10.5 2 3.5

8 1 1.8 2 3.5 7 12.3

9 2 3.5 6 10.5 1 1.8

10 or More 3 5.3 9 15.8 7 12.3

The participants had an average 4.7 years of experience using project-based

teaching methodologies such as project-based learning or project-based approaches to

classroom management. The range of experience was from 0 to 17 years (R=17). When

they identified their experience using project-based approaches, 26.3 % of the

participants had one or less year of experience with 14.0 % indicating they had no

experience at all. Close to one-fourth of the participants had 8 or more years of

experience.

The participants rated themselves on their use of project-based learning with

technology methodologies. A scale was developed that allowed participants to rate

themselves on 10 different teacher behaviors associated with project-based learning

methodologies. Each item was rated using a 1 through 5 Likert-type scale. Teachers that

scored closer to a total of 50 points were more likely to use project-based types of

methodologies. Participant scores ranged from a low of 22 to 46 (R=24). The mean score

was 35.09; the median was 35; the mode was 38; and the standard deviation was 5.10. A

list of each question category, rating scale, and responses is presented in Table 14.

110


Table 14

Use of Project Work With Technology

Response Categories

Rating ScalePercentage(Number of Respondents)

Rating Mean(StandardDeviation)

1 2 3 4 5

Management

Fully Teacher Managed

10.5(6)

19.3(11)

50.9(29)

12.3(7)

Fully Student

Managed3.5(2)

2.82(1.0)

Assessment Minimal Use of

Assessment7.0(4)

10.5(6)

19.3(11)

31.6(18)

Multiple Uses of

Assessment24.6(14)

3.68(1.2)

Real World Experiences

Not Related to the Real

World0.0(0)

5.3(3)

12.3(7)

26.3(15)

Related to the Real World49.1(28)

4.32(0.9)

Decision Making Teacher Makes

Decisions7.0(4)

17.5(7)

43.9(25)

21.1(12)

Students Make

Decisions10.5(6)

3.23(1.1)

111


Central Question Identified by Teacher

7.0(4)

17.5(10)

38.6(22)

22.8(13)

Identified by Students

8.8(5)

3.16(1.1)

Curriculum Not Related To

Curriculum7.0(4)

10.5(6)

14.0(8)

28.1(16)

Curriculum Based

35.1(20)

3.82(1.3)

ICT Use Minimal Use of

ICT12.3(7)

10.5(6)

19.3(11)

19.3(11)

Multiple Uses of

ICT33.3(19)

3.61(1.4)

Student Collaboration

Minimal Student

Collabor-ation1.8(1)

1.8(1)

21.1(12)

29.8(17)

Student Collabor-

ation at All Phases40.4(23)

4.16(0.9)

End of Project Focus on Process

22.8(13)

21.1(12)

40.4(23)

8.8(5)

Focus on End Project

7.0(4)

2.56(1.1)

Depth of Study Minimal Study of Subject Matter

5.3(3)

1.8(1)

31.6(18)

35.1(20)

Major Study of Subject Matter21.1(12)

3.72(1.0)

Open-ended Questions

Question 1

The first open-ended question asked participants to describe the expectations they

had for Learning Circles. Responses were collected from all 57 participants and

downloaded from Survey Monkey. The responses were reviewed to look for emerging

112


themes. More than half of the respondents recorded multiple expectations. The responses

tended to focus on types of experiences that teachers wanted to create or provide for their

students.

The first layer of coding focused on determining the primary reason or primary

response for each participant. All responses were hand-coded and special attention was

given to the fact that most of the responses were from teachers for whom English was not

their first language. Six major categories of expectations emerged from the responses.

These categories and the number of responses are listed in Table 15.

Table 15

Open-ended Question 1

What expectations do you have for Learning Circles?

Response Categories Main Response

(N=57)

Main and Additional Responses

(N= 103)

Global Education 20 35

Language Skills 14 22

Teacher Ideas 11 17

Telecollaboration 8 14

Motivation/Enrich Learning 2 8

Technology 2 7

Teachers identified that the major expectation they were looking for was a global

education experience (n=20) for their students. The category that received the second

113


greatest response was teachers looking for a language experience. This included

subcategories such as practicing English writing and reading (for students studying

English as a second language) as well as teachers that were looking a language

communication experience for their students.

After the initial round of coding, responses that had multiple answers were put

through a second level of coding to break down the multiple responses into individual

categories. No new categories emerged and global education remained the category that

was identified most often. A third level of coding was applied to the responses to look for

subcategories within each category. This proved a more difficult task since a good

number of teachers identified general expectations rather than specific goals. Some

subcategories did emerge in various categories. Teachers that were looking for a

language experience for their students identified that they were specifically looking to

enhance their students’ opportunity to use and practice their English as a second

language. Other teachers were specifically using Learning Circles as a literary project and

were hoping that students would improve their skills by writing for a real audience or

would see examples from children their own age that they could use as models.

Question 2

The second open-ended question asked teachers to specifically focus on the

expectations they had for their students. In the pilot study, a few teachers had expressed

that Question 1 and Question 2 seemed similar, yet, when the teachers responded, it was

clear that they did draw distinctions between the two questions and were able to move

from examining their general expectations for Learning Circles to their more specific

expectations for just their students. Teacher expectations for their students yielded five

114


categories in both rounds of coding. These categories centered on experiences or related

skills that teachers were looking to provide or develop with students. The response

categories for both rounds of coding are presented in Table 16.

Table 16


What outcomes are you hoping to realize for your students as you use Learning Circles?


(N=57)


(N= 115)

Global Education 20 35

Language Skills 19 30

Motivation/Enrich Learning 8 20

Technology 7 18

Telecollaboration 3 12

The second open-ended question produced more responses with multiple

expectations. Since teachers were asked to specifically focus on students, it appeared that

they were more inclined to have multiple expectations that they hoped their students

would gain by participating in Learning Circles. The Global Education and Language

Skill categories continued to dominate the expectations teachers had for Learning Circles.

115


Question 3

The purpose of Question 3 was to have teachers focus exclusively on themselves

and to examine their own personal expectations for using Learning Circles. Teachers

were hoping that Learning Circles would advance their level of professional skills. They

also were genuinely expecting to gain skills in being able to implement and engage in

telecollaborative learning activities. The main response and additional responses for each

category are presented in Table 17. Generally teachers appeared to be interested in their

own skills proficiencies in some way. The improvement of professional skills achieved

the greatest number of responses. Teachers who specifically indicated that they were

looking to improve their skills in using telecollaborative project work was the second

highest level. The category that received the third highest level of response was teachers

who were expecting to gain some general degree of learning by simply being exposed to

teachers from other cultures and different parts of the world. The teachers did not express

any specific skill or experience, but simply indicated that they believed the environment

would enrich them as teachers. Two categories emerged in the second round of coding

that did not appear in the initial round. Three teachers specifically expressed that they

were expecting to improve their own English skills and one teacher was looking to make

new friends.

Table 17


Do you have any learning goals for yourself in this telecommunication project? If so, what are they?


(N=57)


116


(N= 83)

Improve Professional Skills 17 22

Learn Telecollaboration 17 20

Learn by Being Exposed To Other Teachers

12 16

Improve ICT Skills 8 14

Global Education Experience 3 7

Improve English Skills 0 3

Make New Friends 0 1

Additional Responses

Teachers were given the opportunity to share or express any information they

believed would be of interest or use to the research or the researchers. Most of the

information focused on explaining a local teaching situation or offering opinions for a

successful project. Three participants offered some insight into the current state of

telecollaborative project work. One teacher wrote:

I am of the view that a lot of teachers may be willing to integrate technology into the classroom but the nature of timetables in the schools and the facilities as well as the focus of educational institutions make things sometimes difficult.

Another teacher offered:

The integration of technology into the classroom in a meaningful way is one of the biggest challenges we face. Therefore engaging in a project such as Learning Circles greatly aids the teacher in examining and engaging in meaningful use.

A third teacher provided more insight:

In our country, telecollaborative work is still something that only "enthusiastic" teachers do. Their work is not valued and it is not supported enough by

117


government. And till the participation in international projects and project-based learning won't be a state politics, the development won't be fast enough.

Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey

Three online surveys were made available to all the participants who responded to

the initial Pre-Survey. Interim Survey I was opened to the participants on November 3,

2009. This allowed the participants to assess their experience at the end of five full

weeks. During this time period, each participating teacher should have introduced

him/herself and his/her class through the use of a Class Survey and optional student

messages. Each participant should have also posted a Project Idea. Of the original 57

study participants, 50 participants completed Interim Survey I.

Interim Survey II was administered on December 12, 2008. This was the tenth

week of Learning Circles that coincided the end of the Exchange of Student Work and

the beginning of the Publication phase. This survey was exactly like the first Interim

Survey except that it contained two additional questions that asked the participants to

identify their primary reason for using Learning Circles for their students and themselves.

The number of participants who responded to this survey was 41. The lower number of

respondents was due to the fact that some participants dropped out during the Exchange

of Student Information. The most common reasons for participants to drop out were that

either they were not able to develop a Project Idea, they found that it was too much

commitment to gather work for other schools, or their Circle became inactive due to lack

of participation by most of the members.

The final Post Survey was made available to the participants on January 7, 2009.

Most of the participants had a vacation break the previous two weeks due to the

Christmas and New Year’s holiday. This survey coincided with the beginning of the

118


Saying Goodbye phase of Learning Circles. The participants had about a two-week time

frame in which to say goodbye and to finish up any final details regarding the submission

of their final projects. The Post Survey was similar in format to the two previous interim

surveys. The major differences were that the participants were asked assess their entire

Learning Circles experience and project if they would participate in the future. The

number of participants who responded to this survey was 39. This number again dropped

from the previous phase due to the fact that two participants had stopped their

participation over the holiday and during the publication time period. Neither participant

was willing to provide an explanation for ending their participation.

Changing Expectations

Participants were asked: Have your expectations changed since you began the

project? For Interim Survey 1, which was administered at 5 weeks, 24 of 50 (48.0 %)

participants responded “Yes” and 26 of the 50 (52.0 %) participants responded “No.”

When the participants responded to this question at 10 weeks during Interim Survey II,

18 of 41 (43.9%) participants responded “Yes” and 23 of the 41 (56.1%) participants

responded “No.” The final Post Survey showed similar results to the two previous

surveys even though it asked participants to assess their overall experience instead of just

the last five weeks. When participants were asked: Did your expectations change since

you began the project? 16 of 39 (41.0%) participants responded “Yes” and 23 of the 39

(59.0%) participants responded “No.” All results are presented in Table 18. Over the

three surveys the number of participants who responded that their expectations changed

definitely decreased. It is likely that as the participants became more familiar with the

project they were less likely to view their expectations as having changed.

119


Table 18

Changing Expectations

Have your expectations changed since you began the project?

Response Choice Interim Survey I(N=50)

Interim Survey II(N=41)

Post Survey(N=39)

Yes 24(48.0)

18(43.9)

16(41.0)

No 26(52.0)

23(56.1)

23(59.0)

If a participant answered, “Yes,” he/she was prompted to provide an explanation

on how his/her expectation changed. Responses were coded for all three surveys using

the same method used on the initial open-ended questions to look for emerging categories

and patterns. For Interim Survey II and the Post Survey, I began with the categories that

emerged from the previous survey and then added new categories as they emerged. Each

teacher gave only one reason why he/she had changed his/her expectation for Learning

Circles. The response categories and number of responses for all three surveys are

presented in Table 19.

120

Telecollaborative Project Work 121


Table 19

How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey

Response Categories

Expectations changed because….

Number of ResponsesInterim Survey I

(N=24)

Number of ResponsesInterim Survey II

(N=19)

Number of ResponsesPost Survey

(N=16)

Experience has been more positivethan expected

7 5 5

Project is more work than expected 6 4 3

Expected more direct interaction among students

4 0 0

Expected more participation by other participants

4 4 5

Expected more commitment to projects by other participants

1 0 1

Of the behavior of the participants 1 2 1

Expected projects to be determined by facilitators

1 0 0

Of local technical problems 0 2 0

Expected more back-and-forth discussion among participants

0 2 0

Forced to withdraw because school administration did not approve

0 0 1

The category that initially received the greatest number of responses during

Interim Survey I actually recorded a positive change. The response “Expectations

changed based on the behavior of the participants” did not carry either a negative or

122


positive connotation, but rather the discovery that the participants behaved in a way that

was different than the participant had originally expected. The remaining categories all

reflected expectations that had changed in a negative way than the participant had

originally anticipated.

By Interim Survey II, the comments were generally more negative than positive.

Of the 19 participants who responded, 10 indicated that their expectations changed in a

negative way with the most common reasons being that participants were not

experiencing the participation they expected or the project was simply more work than

they expected. On the positive side, 5 participants indicated that they were more

comfortable with the project and believed it was accomplishing their objectives. The

most common comment was that their familiarity with the project allowed them to better

assess their expectations. One teacher recorded in a positive way that his/her students had

experienced more international awareness. The two participants that indicated they had

changed their expectations based on the behavior of the participants did not express a

strong positive or negative change. They expressed that now that they were more aware

of the project, they believed their students would be able to respond more appropriately.

Two participants indicated that their expectations had changed because of local technical

problems they experienced that were unexpected and did not allow their students to

participate as fully as they had anticipated.

A comparison between Interim Surveys I and II showed that participants

continued to change their expectations because they found the project to be more work

than expected or they were anticipating more participation by other participants. During

both surveys, over half the participants stated that they had changed their expectations

123


because they were expecting some behavior or a higher level of participation from the

other participants. Participants were also more specialized in their responses or were able

to isolate how they had changed their expectation. Their explanations displayed more

reflection and familiarity with the project.

By the time the participants completed the Post Survey, negative comments

continued to dominate the reasons why participants changed their expectations. In

general, teachers changed their expectations because they were not getting the

communication and collaboration from students and teachers in other schools that they

had anticipated before the project began. Also, three teachers found that the project

required more work than they expected when they signed up at the beginning. On the

other hand, 5 of the 16 participants who responded had changed their expectations in a

positive way. The most common response was that the teachers saw their students

learning and gaining more from the experience than they had initially expected. Teachers

also believed that they better understood the process of telecollaboration and would be

better prepared to participate in a future project. One teacher from a Middle Eastern

country lamented that his/her expectations changed because the head of his/her school did

not see the value in the project and believed it was dangerous for students to

communicate with other students in other areas of the world. A comparison between the

three surveys shows that the type and number of responses remained similar.

After the results of Interim Survey I were finalized, a Chi-Square Goodness of Fit

Test was run to determine if there was any significant relationship between a participant’s

level of experience and their change of expectations. It was anticipated that participants

with no or little experience (defined as less than one year) would be more likely to

124


indicate that they had changed their expectations and participants with experience

(defined as one year or greater) would be more likely to indicate that they had not

changed heir expectations. The test indicated that there was no significant difference

between a participant’s level of experience and their expectations (P-Value = 0.7325, x2 =

0.1169; DF = 1). Since results of Interim Survey II and the Post Survey showed similar

results to Interim Survey I, the Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test was not repeated.

Realization of Expectations

On all three surveys the participants were asked to rate their experience on the

four following questions:

How did Learning Circles meet your expectations? (Learning Circles)

How did the outcomes to students you anticipated meet your expectations?

(Student Outcomes)

How did the areas of personal growth you anticipated meet your expectations?

(Personal Growth)

Please rate your overall experience with Learning Circles. (Overall

Experience)

Table 20 presents the responses collected from all the participants who responded to

Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and the Post Survey.

125


Table 20

How Expectations Changed: Interim Survey 1, Interim Survey II, and Post SurveyR

espo

nse

Cat

egor

ies

Surv

ey #

Rating ScalePercentage(Number of Respondents)

Rating Mean

(StandardDeviation)

Fully Meeting

My Expectations

Meeting Some of

My Expectations

Not Meeting

My Expectations

Lear

ning

Circ

les

1 20.0(10)

28.0(14)

44.0(22)

8.0(4)

0.0(0)

3.60(0.90)

2 17.1(7)

31.7(13)

46.3(19)

2.4(1)

2.4(1)

3.59(0.89)

Post 10.3(4)

41.0(16)

38.5(15)

5.1(2)

5.1(2)

3.46(0.94)

Stud

ent O

utco

mes

1 20.0(10)

32.0(16)

46.0(23)

0.0(0)

2.0(1)

3.68(0.87)

2 19.5(8)

29.3(12)

39.0(16)

7.3(3)

4.9(2)

3.51(1.03)

Post 17.9(7)

30.8(12)

41.0(16)

7.7(3)

2.6(1)

3.54(0.97)

Pers

onal

Gro

wth

1 18.0(9)

34.0(17)

46.0(23)

2.0(1)

0.0(0)

3.68(0.79)

2 24.4(10)

34.1(14)

34.1(14)

2.4(1)

4.9(2)

3.71(1.03)

Post 20.5(8)

43.6(17)

28.2(11)

2.6(1)

5.1(2)

3.72(1.00)

Ove

rall

1 22.0(11)

32.0(16)

40.0(20)

4.0(2)

2.0(1)

3.68(0.94)

2 22.0(9)

39.0(16)

34.1(14)

4.9(2)

0.0(0)

3.78(0.85)

126


Expe

rienc Post 20.5

(6)43.6(17)

33.3(13)

5.1(2)

2.6(1)

3.78(0.85)

Learning Circles Meeting Expectations

When the participants were asked if Learning Circles was meeting their

expectations on Interim Survey I, 92.0% responded that it was meeting at least some of

their expectations, and 20.0 % believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only

8.0% felt it was not meeting some of their expectations, and zero participants indicated

that it was not meeting their expectations at all.

By Interim Survey II, 95.1% responded that it was meeting at least some of their

expectations, and 17.1% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only 4.8%

felt it was not meeting some of their expectations, and only one participant (2.4%)

indicated that it was not meeting his/her expectations at all. These results were similar to

the first survey with the major difference being that one participant did indicate that

Learning Circles was not meeting his/her expectations at all.

When teachers were asked on the Post Survey if Learning Circles had met their

expectations, 89.8% answered that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and

20.5% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. On the negative side, four

participants (10.2%) felt it was not meeting their expectations in some way and of those

four, two participants (5.1%) felt it did not meet their expectations at all. The results of

the Post Survey appeared to follow the trend established by the previous surveys with the

major difference being that two more teachers than in the previous survey saw their

experience as not meeting their expectations in some way.

127


Meeting Student Expectations

When the participants evaluated their expectations for student outcomes in

Interim Survey I, 98.0% responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations,

and 20.0 % believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only one participant

(2.0 %) felt it was not meeting his/her expectations at all. By Interim Survey II, 87.8%

responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations, and 19.5 % believed

that it was fully meeting their expectations. Five participants (12.2%) indicated that

Learning Circles was not meeting their expectations in some way, and two participants

(4.9%) felt it was not meeting their expectations at all. When teachers were asked in the

Post Survey how their anticipated outcomes for students met their expectations, 89.7%

believed it met at least some of their expectations, and 17.9% believed that it fully met

their expectations. Four participants (10.3%) responded that Learning Circles did not

meet their expectations for student outcome in some way, and only one participant

(2.6%) felt that it did not meet his/her expectations at all. The results for student

outcomes remained similar during all three surveys with slightly more negatives

appearing in the final two surveys.

Respondents were requested to describe the most important change that they saw

happening in their classroom as a result of their participation in Learning Circles. The

results of all three surveys are presented in Table 21. Initially 10 distinct categories

emerged. New categories were added as they emerged during Interim Survey II and the

Post Survey. Of the 50 participants who responded to Interim Survey I, 40 described their

most important change. All categories reflected a positive experience except one that

indicated that student interest in project work actually decreased because of their

128


experience. Two responses were uncategorized because the participants did not write

enough to clearly understand their meaning. For Interim Survey II, 27 of the 41

participants responded. The majority of responses indicated a positive experience. A new

category was developed for two participants who indicated that they were having unique

problems. One teacher indicated that her students were having a problem connecting to

the Internet and that they were not getting much from their participation. The other

teacher was the person from the Middle Eastern school who was experiencing problems

with the head of his/her school. The Uncategorized category contained one response from

a teacher who did not describe a change, but rather gave an update on the tasks his/her

students were working on.

For the Post Survey, 31 responses were received for this question. All the

responses were positive except for two. One teacher indicated that his/her students did

not become involved in the process and the other response was again from the teacher of

the Middle Eastern school. A new category was developed for one teacher who indicated

that his/her students were experiencing a greater connection and more cooperation in

their student-teacher interaction.

129


Table 21

Most Important Outcome Achieved in the Classroom As a Result of Learning

Circles: Interim Survey I, Interim Survey II, and Post Survey

Response Categories

Students experienced…….

Number of ResponsesInterim Survey I

(N=40)


(N=27)


(N=31)

Increased global awareness 13 5 6

Interest and motivation for telecollaboration has increased

10 9 7

Greater focus on project work 4 5 4

Improvement in language skills 4 2 4

More dialogue with new students 2 0 0

Greater interest in collaboration 2 1 4

Engagement in authentic work 1 0 2

Greater interest in the use of technology

1 2 1

Decrease in enthusiasm for project work

1 0 1

Local technical difficulties 0 2 0

Stronger cooperative relationship between student and teacher

0 0 1

*Uncategorized 2 1 1

130


A comparison between Surveys I and II showed that the initial interest and

motivation for telecollaborative learning continued through to the second survey. On the

other hand, there was a significant decrease for global awareness. Overall, a comparison

of the three surveys showed that Interim Survey II and the Post Survey were most similar.

Most likely as teachers engaged in project work with students they began to see student

achievement in areas associated with a telecollaborative activity. Teachers perceived that

the area where the students experienced the most achievement was in having a greater

understanding and appreciation for telecollaboration. They also saw their students as

developing more global awareness, a greater interest in project work, stronger language

skills, and greater proficiency in collaborating with other students as well as each other.

Meeting Teacher Expectations

In addition to their expectations for students, teachers were asked if Learning

Circles was meeting their expectations for anticipated areas of personal growth. For

Interim Survey I, 98.0 % responded that it was meeting at least some of their

expectations, and 18.0 % believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only one

participant (2.0%) felt it was not meeting some of his/her expectations, and no participant

indicated that it was not meeting their expectations at all. By the Interim Survey II, 92.7%

responded that it was meeting at least some of their expectations and 24.4% believed that

it was fully meeting their expectations. Three participants (7.3%) believed that Learning

Circles was not meeting their expectations, and two participants (4.9%) felt it was not

meeting their expectations at all. Of the 39 participants who responded to the Post

Survey, 92.8% indicated that it met at least some of their expectations, and 20.5%

believed that it fully met their expectations. Three participants (7.7%) believed that

131


Learning Circles did not meet their expectations in some way, and two of these three

participants (5.1%) felt it was not meeting their expectations at all.

Respondents were requested to describe the most important area of personal

growth that they were experiencing on Surveys I and II. On the Post Survey, they were

asked to reflect back on the most important area of personal growth the experienced from

the project. All responses are presented in Table 22. For Interim Survey I, 39 of the 57

participants responded. Their responses were coded and 8 distinct categories were

identified. For Interim Survey II, 30 of the 41 participants responded. The codes from the

Interim Survey I were again used as the starting point for the questions for the Interim

Survey II. The same coding procedure that was used for the previous surveys was also

used for the 29 participants who responded to the Post Survey. No new categories

emerged in this final survey and no negative areas of personal growth were expressed.

On Interim Survey I, all categories reflected a positive change with the greatest

number of responses coming from those teachers who believed that they were developing

project management skills. There were five responses that were Uncategorized because

they either did not contain enough details to be placed in a category, indicated that the

responder was unsure if they were experiencing personal growth, or did not describe an

area of personal growth. Again on Interim Survey II, all categories reflected a positive

change. The greatest number of responses came from those teachers who believed that

they were developing project management skills. A new category emerged from

participants who indicated that they were developing personal character traits such as

self-trust, self-discipline, self-confidence, online social skills, and personal

communication skills. The Uncategorized category was again used for participants who

132


posted comments that were not well defined, did not seem to answer the question, or

seemed to indicate that the participants were experiencing some personal frustration with

other members of their Circle.

The results of the Post Survey showed that the area where the most teachers

believed they experienced growth was in developing more teaching skills. Teachers were

not specific in describing the skills they believed and expressed that they felt their

teaching became better as a result of their experience. Other categories that received

higher numbers of responses from teachers indicated that teachers did feel that they were

more proficient with using telecollaboration. Teachers also expressed that they did feel

more connected to the global community of teachers and were more aware of what

teachers were doing in other areas of the world. The Uncategorized category was again

used for participants who posted comments that did not seem to answer the question or

discussed areas of student growth.

133


Table 22

Most Important Area of Personal Growth That a Teacher Experienced: Interim Survey I,

Interim Survey II, and Post Survey

Response Categories

Personally teachers………

Number of ResponsesInterim Survey 1

(N=39)


(N=30)


(N=29)

Developed project management skills

14 7 2

Improved technology skills for teaching

6 3 2

Experienced a greater understanding of telecollaboration

6 6 4

Found global awareness of teaching in other countries

5 2 5

Improved teaching skills 3 1 9

Experienced a greater understanding of students

2 0 2

Improved English skills 1 1 1

Found personal character growth 0 6 1

*Uncategorized 5 4 3

A comparison between the first two surveys found that there were some major

shifts in how teachers were experiencing their own personal growth. The number of

teachers who believed they were developing project management skills dropped from 14

to 7. Six teachers found that they were experiencing their own unique areas of personal

134


character growth. An overall examination of the three surveys showed that this question

had more major shifts than the other questions. Initially teachers identified that they

believed they were developing project management skills, but over the course of the

project, teachers switched to expressing that they believed their teaching skills in general

were improving. It is possible that the teachers began to internalize the project

management skills they were developing and incorporate them into their general

teaching. There was also a noticeable drop in teachers identifying technology skills as

their major area of personal growth. This seems to follow the same trend found in the

shift from project management skills. Project management and ICT skills were two areas

teachers needed to develop to be successful with telecollaborative work. As they

identified and developed these skills they appeared to incorporate them into other areas.

The numbers of responses associated with the other categories remained relatively stable

throughout the three surveys.

Meeting Overall Expectations

The last question participants were asked to rate was their overall experience with

Learning Circles. On Interim Survey I, 94.0% responded that it was meeting at least some

of their expectations, and 22.0% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations.

Only 6.0% felt it was not meeting their expectations in some way, and only one

participant (2.0%) believed it was not meeting his/ her expectations at all.

On Interim Survey II, 95.1% responded that it was meeting at least some of their

expectations, and 22.0% believed that it was fully meeting their expectations. Only two

participants (4.9%) felt it was not meeting their expectations in some way, and zero

participants believed it was not meeting his/ her expectations at all. A comparison of

135


overall growth between Interim Surveys I and II showed similar results. In general, an

overwhelming number of teachers believed that Learning Circles was meeting at least

some of their expectations.

The Post Survey asked the participants to reflect back over the entire project and

rate their overall experience with Learning Circles. Of the 39 participants, 97.4%

responded that it met at least some of their expectations, and 20.5% believed that it fully

met their expectations. Only three participants (7.7%) felt it did not meet their

expectations in some way, and one (2.6%) of those three participants believed it did not

meet his/her expectations at all. A comparison of the three surveys showed similar

results. There were small shifts between teachers expressing that overall Learning Circles

met some of their expectations and those who had a slightly favorable view of Learning

Circles meeting their overall expectations. Throughout all three surveys, 94% or more of

the teachers always found that Learning Circles was meeting at least some of their

expectations.

Progress Update

Each survey participant was asked to describe how his/her Learning Circle

experience was progressing after weeks five and ten. Week five was chosen because it

coincided with the end of the Exchange of Cultural Information and the Project Idea

phases. Week ten coincided with the end of the Exchange of Student Information phase.

Participants were encouraged to describe what was working well and what was not

working. Most participants wrote a narrative that was close to a paragraph in length.

Their responses were coded to determine the general theme of their progress report. For

Interim Survey I seven categories were identified. Three additional categories emerged

136


during Interim Survey II that did not occur in the first Interim Survey. All categories from

Interim Surveys I and II are presented in Table 23.

Table 23

Progress of Learning Circle Experience: Interim Survey I and Interim Survey II

Response Categories Number of ResponsesInterim Survey I

(N=49)


(N=40)

Predominantly positive experience for teacher and students (Minor problems identified)

18 14

Beginner – experiencing confusion and still learning the process

10 0

Project moving slower than anticipated 6 4

Mixed experience – some parts are going well and other areas are not going as expected

6 10

Feeling disconnected from the other participants in the Circle

4 2

Learning to balance the work required to complete the project

3 0

Would like to see more student dialogue 2 1

Frustrated by lack of responses or participation from other schools

0 3

Too much work for students to complete in time

0 4

Not completing the project – have decided to drop out

0 2

137


Interim Survey I. Teachers who described their experience as predominantly

positive tended to see almost all of their experience as being a worthwhile experience for

students that was worth their investment of time and energy. Their negative comments

were minor or often dealt with frustrations experienced locally. An example of this type

of message was:

It's such a pleasant learning experience for my students as it helps them to: introduce their own culture and country to others, improve foreign language skills, understand similarities and differences, and improve research skills. Problems and challenges: We have little chance to use the computers at school. Students have difficulties in communicating in other languages.

Teachers who were beginners expressed frustration in not knowing what to expect and

also confusion over not understanding the process. An example written by one of the

teachers expressed this frustration and confusion:

Frustrating because it took a long time to gather the data for the class survey - sometimes confused about what is expected of me; eg. the template for our circle - emails from coordinator help to keep me on track and make me feel supported but I'm reluctant to seek help in case my concerns seem trivial

The category the had the third greatest number of responses was made up of teachers who

expressed that currently their project was moving slowly either due to class related

reasons or lack of participation by other participants. One teacher wrote:

As I have mentioned in the previous questions the process is running very slow. Because of my absence related to health problems I fell behind the schedule. While I was away I tried to contact my students through e-mail but it didn't work. Now I encourage my other students, who aren't in the project group, in the class to write to the ongoing projects and waiting for their results. Students' enthusiasm is much more motivating then anything else. If there is no place for these projects in school or lesson curriculum it turns out to be a huge problem in terms of accomplishment of each step on time.

Teachers who were experiencing mixed progress seemed to be split between whether

their progress was positive or negative. An example of this type of update was:

138


Not all members of the circle are participating. Only half of us are active. This influences also the students. I don't know whether we misunderstood the instructions, but we were the only ones who also did Welcome Packs (on line) in addition to the survey. The positive side of the project is the students' interest in work and other cultures. They forget to worry about the English grammar when they do the work.

Four teachers described themselves as feeling disconnected from the other members of

their Circle. Most expressed that their experience was not what they expected or that they

were simply not getting the type of responses they expected.

I enjoy having the opportunity to send Welcome Packages, but overall I feel very disconnected with the circles. I was under the impression that my students would have the opportunity to converse with other students based on a question posed by the facilitator. This may just be confusion on my part, but even when I asked the facilitator and group for suggestions I did not receive anything.

Three teachers expressed that the found they were struggling with balancing their

participation in the project with all their other teaching responsibilities. An example of a

response that was placed in this category was: “Time is always a pressure and the balance

with other curriculum is always a dance.” Two teachers responded that they were

disappointed that there was a lack of student-to-student dialogue. One teacher wrote:

I am managing the teaching around Heroes as well as I would without being part of the circle. My kids need a critical audience and quick feedback. The writing portion of the project is proceeding and while and I am providing the feedback. That is fine, but I would love some ongoing feedback from other classes. My class is not satisfied to simply send their writing into outer space without anyone giving feedback, whether that be through personal introductions, hero ideas or the big project itself. I chose to not have my kids write intro letters or anything because who's going to directly respond to them? Seems like a waste of time. They need a way to say "Hi" and to have someone else say "hi" back.

In general, 26 of the 48 responses leaned more to the negative, 18 were strongly positive

and 5 were evenly balanced between the positive and negative.

Interim Survey II. Teachers who saw their experience to date as being largely

positive with only minor problems continued to dominate the type of responses received

139


in the progress update. One teacher wrote, “I've got new ideas, made new friends, tried to

take part in the international project, learned a lot of interesting things, got important

experience, and had lots of positive emotions.” Another teacher wrote, “Our group is

doing very well and students are learning to do collaborative projects.”

Participants who had a mixed experience continued to indicate that some things

were working well, but they equally found there were negative aspects to their

experience. One teacher wrote:

This interesting experience will involve me more in other experiences with telecollaborative projects and push me more to use ICT as to approach some topic of the curriculum. I did share this experience with some colleagues and friends and some of them have shown interest to try it. My students were very excited during all the process and especially the short moments they were working in the computers. Access to Internet was for my students and me the biggest challenge and this is why the expectations weren't completely met.

Another teacher wrote:

Overall it's going on well. What is working well is that my students are enjoying learning about students from other countries and sharing their work. What is not working well is that there was more than one project idea in the Learning Circle which made it difficult for my students to work on them all, especially if all of them were interested in working one idea, then it was difficult for me to introduce another project proposal. Another point is that not all participants sent their project ideas on time, which was a bit inconvenient.

Some of the participants who wrote about their experiences in a negative way actually

found that their students were so involved it was taking more time than anticipated. One

teacher commented:

Anyway, I'm having trouble completing the projects on time because I've made them too complicated and have had to wait for responses from the heroes. I didn't anticipate having such great responses from the kids’ heroes. Around 60% of my kids have had meaningful, interactive responses from their heroes.

Other participants found they were still disconnected from their Circle members and were

frustrated by the lack of responses and participation. One teacher responded, “It has not

140


been so good so far. It feels disjointed because participants send in different things and

different times. I don't really know what to expect or when.” Another teacher wrote, “I

have found this session of the Learning Circle very disappointing. This is because the

other classes except one in my country, Ghana, have not sent in their topics. I am

confused as to what to tell my students.” Other teachers found that the project requests

were simply too much work for their students. One teacher expressed, “Some of project

ideas are unclear for me. Other tasks are too large: they ask for too much information.”

Two teachers wrote that they were not completing the project due to local situations that

prevented them from continuing their participation.

Expectations

After the Pre-Survey was administered it was decided that it would be valuable to

have the participants observe the expectation categories given for participation in

Learning Circles and choose the one they believed was their most important student

expectation as well as their most important personal expectation. This question was

presented to the participants during Interim Survey II. The category choices and number

of responses are presented in Tables 24 and 25.

Table 24

Student Expectations for Learning Circles

Choose your number one student expectation for Learning Circles.

Response Categories Percentages(Number of Responses)

(N=41)

To increase students' experience with ICT 9.8(4)

To allow students to engage in collaborative project-work 17.1

141


(7)

To provide motivating and enriching learning activities for students

7.3(3)

To promote student global awareness and exposure to other cultures

43.9(18)

To provide students with opportunities to improve their language and communication skills

22.0(9)

Other (please specify) 0(0)

Table 25

Personal Expectations for Learning Circles

Choose your number one expectation for yourself for Learning Circles?

Response Categories Percentages(Number of Responses)

(N=41)

To gain and exchange creative ideas with other teachers 19.5(8)

To improve my computer and ICT skills 0(0)

To improve my general teaching skills 9.8(4)

To develop friendships and expose myself to teachers from other cultures

12.2(5)

To gain experience with telecollaborative project work 58.5(24)

Other (please specify) 0(0)

The responses given by the participants did not produce any surprises. When they

were given the opportunity to choose only one main expectation for their students and

142


themselves they confirmed the same choices they made in the initial survey. No one

chose the “Other” category for either question.

The Learning Circle Process

It was also decided after the Pre-Survey that it would be valuable to identify

where in the Learning Circle process the participants were best fulfilling their

expectations. A question was developed for the Post Survey that asked the participants to

identify the phase of Learning Circles that they believed best helped them to fulfill their

expectation. Since initially it appeared that the majority of participants were looking for

some type of global exchange experience it was anticipated that the participants might

have viewed the initial cultural exchange phases as more valuable than the project phases.

The results of the question are presented in Table 26.

143


Table 26

The Phase of Learning Circles That Best Helped the Participants to Experience

Their Expectations: Post Survey

Response Categories

The phase of Learning Circles that you believe best helped you to fulfill your expectations

Percentages(Number of Responses)

(N=39)

Exchange of Teacher Information 7.7(3)

Class Survey and Exchange of Student Information 28.2(11)

Development of Project Idea 23.1(9)

Exchange of Student Work 28.2(11)

Publication of Student Work 7.7(3)

Other 5.1(2)

It is not surprising that the initial cultural exchange phases (Exchange of Student

Information, Class Survey, and Exchange of Teacher Information) were chosen by over

one-third of the teachers (35.9%) as having best helped them to fulfill their expectations.

Upon closer examination, it does appear that teachers also saw the value of the project

phase as meeting their expectations. The same number of participants chose the

Exchange of Student Work phase (28.2%) as the Class Survey phase. When the

Exchange of Student Work and Development of Project Idea are combined, over one-half

(51.3%) of the participants chose one of these two phases. It appears that by the end of

Learning Circles, more participants began to understand the value the project phases as

144


also helping them to fulfill their global education expectations even more than the

exchange of cultural information. The “Other” category included one response from a

participant who described the entire process as helping to fulfill his/her expectations. The

other participant did not describe a phase, but rather activities associated with the

Exchange of Student Work phase.

Future Participation

When participants were asked in the Post Survey if they would participate in

Learning Circles again, all 39 teachers responded “Yes” (100%). The participants were

asked to share their reasons for choosing “Yes” or “No.” Of the 39 teachers who

participated in the survey, 33 teachers wrote reasons that ranged from a few words to an

entire paragraph. An attempt was made to develop categories for why teachers would

participate again, but the responses were more summative and too general in nature to

distinguish major categorical differences.

Some themes did emerge in which participants expressed the value they saw in

the project. Among these themes were the fact that teachers did see value in the

international exchange among the students and themselves. One teacher remarked, “I

love being involved with other cultures, students and teachers to help broaden my

understanding of the world we live in.” Another teacher found that, “It brings global

awareness to me and my students, there is a variety in the projects and also the

collaboration among students widens the learning scope.” A third teacher addressed the

potential of ICT by writing, “I think taking part in this work helps students to learn more

about the world, about teenagers in different parts of the world, and about the

opportunities the computer gives them.” There was no discernable pattern among the

145


themes by region or project choices. In general, the responses were very positive and

expressed that participants were pleased with their overall experience.

Teachers also addressed the fact that the projects and experience did not

necessarily follow their expectations. One teacher acknowledged, “They are valuable

project regardless of the extent to which they are successful or meet expectations.

Teachers can only improve their participation the more they are involved from year to

year.” Another teacher summarized:

This project is so unique and is so simple to implement in the classroom. Each time I participate, I learn more about how to manage classroom time and integrate technology in a more meaningful way and improve my lesson plans, and apply the theory in a practical way (since they have to produce a project at the end). The project doesn't always turn out the way I envision, but the experience is invaluable and years from now, students will benefit from it through me.

Teachers also projected how the process could serve them better. One teacher

envisioned, “The exchanges were a fine first step in a transformational journey. I will like

us to see the possibility of video conferencing and working on a common work with more

interaction between students. Direct student project exchange was limited.” Another

teacher optimistically speculated, “I did not have a good experience with this group and

am hoping that the next experience will be much more positive and rewarding.”

A few teachers attempted to give a comprehensive list of reasons why they would

participate again. One teacher identified that:

There is a lot to gain from the Learning Circle in terms of: a) Personal skills development, b) Exchange of ideas with fellow teachers from different geographical regions, c) Offering opportunities to many students for learning about other cultures of the world, and d) Giving students the opportunity to learn more about ICT.

Another teacher simply summarized her experience by saying, “It's fun, it's interesting, it

is very motivational, and it gives students a sense of doing something that really matters.”

146


Speaking on the motivational influence of Learning Circles, one teacher indicated she

would be participating again because, “I have students contacting me daily about when

our next circle will take place. I couldn't stop participating even if I wanted to! My

students are too eager to participate again, which I think is wonderful news!”

When teachers were asked if they would participate in another telecollaborative

project work experience like Learning Circles, 34 of the 39 (87.2 %) teachers responded

“Yes,” five (12.8 %) teachers responded “No.” Teachers were requested to provide a

writing explanation for their decision. Of the 39 teachers that participated in the survey

question, 31 provided a response. Of the five teachers who responded “No,” only three

teachers provided a response. One teacher wrote that she was not aware of any other

project. Another wrote that she did not believe she would have enough time to do other

types of projects, and a third teacher wrote that since it was her first time to participate in

a telecollaborative project she could not speculate on what she would do in the future.

The responses of the teachers who answered, “Yes” were analyzed to look for

potential coding categories, but again the responses tended to be either too general,

listings of benefits, or were more speculative in nature. Six teachers stated that their

reasons were similar to the question regarding their participation in Learning Circles

One strong theme that emerged addressed the benefits of telecollaborative project

work. One teacher wrote, “It provides so many cross-cultural learning opportunities and

integrated technology in a real setting.” Another teacher offered, “Telecollaborative

projects improve the awareness of other cultures and change the routine of traditional

education.” A third teacher stated that:

Designing a project and brainstorming and developing tasks is a very useful method for making my projects more student-centered, in addition to employing

147


ICT in achieving the tasks. Also Students find meeting new students and making new friendships interesting and this motivates to work on the projects in order to be published.

Another teacher offered, “The work stretches students and overcomes cultural myopia.”

While another believed that, “Students need to be involved with real projects with real

audiences. It makes the learning more valuable.”

One teacher provided a general overview of telecollaborative project work by

writing:

Many times I feel that when we use technology in the classroom it can be a little “stilted.” The telecollaborative sharing brings the technology to life and makes it more meaningful since the students have to be more disciplined…its not just chatting and teachers have an opportunity to get so many perspectives...which helps.

Another teacher who saw the long-range value of telecollaborative project work wrote,

“People need to interact with one another, one way or the other. This method enables us

to overcome political boundaries, economic constraints, etc. Exchange of cultural

information makes us one person, united in thoughts and finally in action.” Other

teachers expressed how they saw this as a new beginning to their teaching. One recorded,

“I know better what my goals are. I'm very eager to work with others.” While another

teacher expressed her determination by stating, “I will never give up-now I now how!”

Additional Responses

At the end of each survey, the participants were given the opportunity to share or

express any information that they believed would be of interest or use to the research or

the researchers. This information provided great insight into how the participants

perceived their experience and what they were thinking about at the time of the survey.

148


Interim Survey I. Twenty-nine teachers responded with statements about their

participation as well as questions and concerns. One example of a suggestion was:

The project and success of the group is as only strong as the participation. I believe the full benefit of such collaboration is not fully felt until after the circle closes...when there is enough time for reflection. So perhaps...one of the activities that can be made part of circle experience is a weekly reflection to the group, which can stimulate more discussion on pedagogy or help teachers feel more connected to each other in the circle.

Some participants expressed frustration such as: “I could not understand why my other

fellow teachers are not sending messages” or “I would like to see more dialogue with

other students from other schools online...is there a reason this is not happening?” Other

participants gave a mixed view of what was going on in his/her Circle: “Every Learning

Circle has its ups and downs and surprises... My children are really excited by our

projects and are getting some really great learning about things in our neighborhood and

around the world.” There were also some strong positive comments such as:

Through participating in the LC and interacting with teachers from different parts of the world I always gain a great deal of knowledge that I don’t think I can come to it any other way. I learn about what happens in schools around the world; how are we the same and how we are different.

One participant simply wrote: “It's the best project experience I have ever had.”

Interim Survey II. The last section of Interim Survey II again allowed participants

the opportunity to share or express any information that they believed would be of

interest or use to the research or the researchers. Twenty-seven teachers responded with

statements about their participation. Some teachers were very proud of their

accomplishments. One teacher wrote, “This is first time our school worked, and students

has produced work with clear thought and conveyed it well.” The majority of these

comments were surprisingly positive given the fact that there were many negative

149


comments during the progress report section of the survey. Participants became very

reflective and questioned how they could encourage more teachers to become involved in

telecollaborative learning. They also lamented that there were students in different parts

of the world who were not getting an opportunity to participate. One teacher wrote:

When I did talk to my colleagues about this experience they liked it. But only one of them showed his interest to try it. Because teachers are not familiar with ICT they cannot see how can they benefit from it as a new mean for teaching. Our teaching methodologies in public schools are still very traditional and not open to creativity and initiatives. Experiences like learning circles can permit teachers to integrate ICT in a pleasant way in their methodologies. Because the projects are based on students choices and students are using new means of communication they feel more motivated.

Another teacher wrote, “We enjoy being online but I feel that there is a lot of

disadvantaged but talented students in other countries, especially in rural areas who can

benefit a lot from these sessions. However, I do not know what can be done to assist

these students.” Another teacher commented, “Ways should be found as to how more

students can benefit from Learning Circles in the schools.”

Clearly participants were thinking of ways the process could work better for their

local teaching situation. One participant commented, “It was difficult getting the

collaboration in projects going. Perhaps our projects at first were more like parallel play

than collaboration. I thought that collaboration involved discussing a common project

with the same parameters. Our projects were similar, but not common. I would like to

pursue something more common.” Another participant suggested, “While it might

reduce creativity, I think the facilitator should be more assertive in defining what the final

product should be. There could be a sort of template at the beginning and we would all

know where we are to submit our part, and when, and how it would look.” Still another

150


participant felt it was important to provide teachers with some techniques and skills of

communicating with each other as well as to provide more student-to-student activities.

By and large the participants seemed to be pleased with their experience. One

teacher wrote, “I enjoy being a part of these projects, and I hope to continue with them

for some time.” Another was so delighted with the progress of her students that she

wrote, “If I could, I would give the Nobel Prize for this telecollaborative project.”

Post Survey. The final section of the Post Survey provided the participants with

one last opportunity to share or express any information that they believed would be of

interest or use to the research or the researchers. Twenty-two teachers responded with

statements that could be categorized as additional information, suggestions,

endorsements, confessions, or thank you messages.

There were five teachers who provided suggestions. Three of them requested

methods for more forms of collaboration. One teacher wrote, “I would like to see a

protected discussion space developed for each learning circle. I use them extensively

within my own classroom and they allow the students to pose ideas and ask questions. I

like to see them making the connections, not just me.” Another wrote:

I think that the only thing I might want to express is being able to have real-time web-based classrooms between the members. My class and I had the opportunity to do this with a member of my circle and the students were so excited and so engaged. I would think this would be such a positive addition to the circle.

The third teacher expressed the hope, but acknowledged the difficulty by stating, “I think

if there was a way to have a session for everyone at once... it could be awesome... though

that is a difficult task as we are spread around so many time zones.” The fourth teacher

who provided a suggestion wrote, “The iEARN Learning Circle is well-structured and

detailed. However, following the same pattern or structure every time can become boring.

151


I suggest the format or structure can be varied during some of the sessions.” The fifth

teacher addressed a problem with age groups being too diverse:

I think it would be useful for the participants to be of the same age. This year for instance, my students in of high school were 14 and in the Circle there were 17-18-year-old students. I think it would be better to be of the same age (or at least 1 or 2 years difference).

Some teachers offered details to help put their experience in some type of context.

One teacher wrote:

I was working with the class that is by some believed to be one of the worst on our school. I was pleasantly surprised that they like doing things that are not strictly school work, but they need constant encouragement; "they needed to be pushed," which becomes tiring for the mentor, especially towards the end.

Another teacher explained:

No Child Left Behind has put a strain on many teachers in the United States forcing teachers to focus on basics and forgetting why we really teach. I teach to help students become lifelong learners and problem solvers... No Child Left Behind, sadly, has meant less time to work on real learning!

One teacher provided a confession by stating, “Unfortunately, this past semester I feel

that the expectations that I put on Learning Circle members to participate, I didn't meet

myself. That was a little disappointing, but not entirely discouraging.” Lastly, one teacher

reflected on her experience by writing:

I thoroughly enjoyed the Learning Circles even though I did not follow the requirements completely. Given that I work in a cyber school environment, some of the work we do is not conducive to our school situation. However, one of the other teachers in the circle reminded me that the point is to reach some goal for our students, and even if I didn't do everything I should have, if my kids got something positive from the process, I have done my job. That was good information to get. I also have a great plan for working through the circle again. I can't wait to get started on the next circle!

152


CHAPTER 5: THE CASE STUDY EXPERIENCE

Background Information

A second layer of information was collected as part of this research by closely

following the successes and trials of a group of teachers who comprised one Circle group.

A plan was developed to look for volunteers who were willing to have every aspect of

their experience examined in order to build a detailed case study that captured the week-

to-week activities and workings of the Learning Circle process. Teachers were asked to

participate in all four online surveys just as the large group of participants. They were

also asked to participate in an interview and to provide progress reports as needed. In

addition, all the case study participants knew that the correspondence that was exchanged

between the members of the group would be examined and used as an integral part of the

case study. Lastly, each member was asked to be available to provide answers to

additional questions that arose through the process. Chapter 5 provides an examination of

each of the participants, a week-by-week summary of what happened, examinations of

their responses to specific questions, and observations on their behavior.

Case Study Group

The seven teachers who participated in the case study group were elementary

teachers who expressed interest in either Computer Chronicles or Places and

Perspectives. These were the only elementary teachers that registered for these

elementary Learning Circles themes, and they all volunteered to be part of the research

group. Since there were not enough teachers for either theme to run by itself, the teachers

were placed together and designated as a group that would be primarily a Places and

153


Perspective Circle, but would also allow teachers some leeway to sponsor a project that

focused on non-fictional writing that was not specifically related to geography.

The group was typical for an elementary Learning Circles group in that the

majority of the participants were from the United States. Since Learning Circles are

traditionally run in English, it is less common to have elementary aged children from

countries where English is not the primary language and who are not comfortable with

written English. At the same time, there are usually a few teachers in other countries that

will find ways to make this work so that they can give their students a telecollaborative

experience. An interesting aspect to this elementary group was that two of the United

States classrooms were not from traditional public or private schools. One teacher taught

a cyber school class that consisted of students from all over the state of Pennsylvania.

The other teacher was a media specialist who taught in a charter school in Atlanta,

Georgia that enrolled students from many diverse cultures who were in the United States

because of their refugee status. The unique make-up of this group, the fact that four of the

seven teachers had no experience with telecollaborative project work, and the potential

challenges they would face made them an ideal group to study. The names that were used

for each teacher and their teaching location are presented in Table 27.

154


Table 27

Case Study Participant Information

Name Used in Study Location

Teacher A (Group Facilitator) Tennessee, USA

Teacher B Oregon, USA

Teacher C Ohio, USA

Teacher D Georgia, USA

Teacher E Philadelphia, USA

Teacher F Morocco

Teacher G Slovenia

The participants had an average of 4.4 years of experience with telecollaborative

project work. Three of the participants had no experience and one had less than one year.

The remaining three participants had 6, 10, and 14 years of experience. The participants

had an average of 8.4 years experience with ICT that ranged from 1 to 16 years (R=15).

The case study group averaged 6.4 years experience with project-based learning

methodologies that ranged from 0 to 15 years (R=15) experience.

Three of the participants described their level of technology integration as being

at the Appropriation level: “I use technology and incorporate it constantly into my own

work practices and classroom. My instruction focuses on the use of cooperative, project-

based, and interdisciplinary work.” Two of the participants described their integration at

the Adaptation level: “I am thoroughly integrating technology into my traditional

classroom practice. I use productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets,

databases, graphic programs, presentation tools, and content-specific software.” One

155


participant identified his/her level at the Adoption level: “I am using technology to

support my traditional instructional practices, but have not made any specific changes to

those actual practices” and the remaining participant chose the Entry level: “I am still

learning how to use and integrate technology.”

Table 28

Comparison of Large Group and Case Study Group

Average Years of Experience Large Group

(N=57)

Case Study Group

(n=7)

Telelcollaborative Project Work 2.5 4.4

Percentage of Participants with Little or No Experience

57.9 57.1

ICT Use 5.2 8.4


14.1 14.3

Project-based Learning Use 4.7 6.4


15.8 28.6

Project-based Learning Profile

Mean 35.1 33.9

Median 35 34

Mode 38 39

Standard Deviation 5.10 5.15

156


Table 28 displays a comparison between the large group of participants (N=57)

and the case study group (n=7). The case study group was slightly more experienced than

the large group, but the percentage of the participants with little or no telecollaborative

project work experience was similar. The case study group’s Project-based Learning

Profile rating was lower (33.9<55.1) than the large group, but all comparisons of central

tendency were similar.

Profiles of Case Study Participants

Teacher A

Teacher A was a long time member of iEARN who started her participation in

Learning Circles in 1999. She has participated every year since. She was drawn to

Learning Circles because of her interest in the global connections offered by iEARN.

Prior to her participation she had never used ICT in her teaching or even a computer. She

actually purchased a computer using her own money in order to get her class involved in

Learning Circles. This led to writing a grant that allowed her school to purchase

computers and develop a program to integrate technology in her school. Teacher A’s

participation in Learning Circles and iEARN motivated her to learn more about project-

based learning and ways to integrate it into her curriculum. At this point she makes every

attempt to fully integrate technology in her classroom in a way that promotes learning

and is totally curriculum based.

During the research period, Teacher A was teaching a 2nd grade class of students

in Tennessee. Her expectations for the September 2008 session Learning Circles were for

her students to learn geography and develop an understanding of the different cultures

and traditions of the participants. She also expected that they would improve their writing

157


and reading skills. She believed that Learning Circles could promote students gaining

these skills because the program would expose her children to other students in different

parts of the world through the use of Class Surveys, student messages, and project

writing. She also believed that her students would produce higher quality written work

because of their participation in an authentic writing experience.

Personally Teacher A felt that she would gain the satisfaction of knowing that her

students were doing better quality work and broadening their horizons. She has also seen

her own technology skills expand through her use of telecollaborative project work and

exposure to teaching ideas suggested by other educators. She cited the use of

VoiceThread and video conferencing as two experiences she has incorporated into her

teaching that were learned from other participants in Learning Circles. Other professional

benefits that Teacher A believed have occurred due to her participation in Learning

Circles are that she has gained a large number of international teacher friends and has had

the opportunity to travel to international destinations in order to attend the conferences

sponsored by iEARN.

Teacher A did not know many other teachers in her school or local teaching

environment who were currently using telecollaborative project work. This was

something she has tried to promote, but has not had much success. Teacher A believed

that her interest in other cultures has sustained her interest and participation in

telecollaborative project work. She thrived on challenges and enjoyed the new

experiences that each session of Learning Circles provided. She always volunteered to

facilitate elementary Circles and was chosen to be the facilitator of the case study group

158


by the Learning Circles Coordinator due to her experience and success with previous

Learning Circles.

Teacher B

Teacher B began his participation in iEARN about 14 years ago due to his

association with a colleague who was a member. He has spent his last ten years of

teaching integrating technology into his curriculum. His focus was to start with the

curriculum and then use the latest tools of educational technology to enhance learning.

His past experiences have included electronic penpals, WebQuests, and an assortment of

telecollaborative projects. He has been able to fund both hardware and training though

grants and is working to promote Learning Circles in his school district and local

educational community. Teacher B prefers to use problem based approaches with his

students and attempts to develop experiences that allow students to develop their learning

through solving real world problems. He teaches fourth grade students in Oregon, and has

had the opportunity to teach cross grade level classes for many years. He has found great

potential for learning by using problem and project-based approaches with cross grade

level classes of students. His colleagues have described him as an explorer in his efforts

to integrate technology into the curriculum, because of his willingness to take risks and

make mistakes.

Teacher B found he could incorporate many items from Learning Circles into his

daily curriculum. His expectation for Learning Circles was that it would promote global

awareness in his students. This was generally the major expectation that has motivated

him to use Learning Circles in the past. He also planned to develop more expectations for

his students after he assessed the strengths and skills of the other participants in his

159


Learning Circles group. A further expectation he had for Learning Circles was that it

would provide “a lot of communication and collaboration from kid-to-kid as well as

teacher-to-teacher.”

Personally and professionally Teacher B expected Learning Circles to help him

become more involved in the global education movement and the integration of

technology into the classroom. He was hoping to find an intrinsic motivation and reward

from families and other colleagues as these experiences went well. He has found that his

past experiences in Learning Circles have been the foundation for presentations at local

and national conferences. During the research period, Teacher B was working with a

colleague who was learning how to do project work. He was not aware of other teachers

at his current school who were doing telecollaborative project work, but he has had

experiences in the past with other teachers who were involved in online project work.

Teacher B believed that he was drawn to this type of teaching because of his deep

seated belief that current models of teaching will have to make massive shifts to meet the

needs of students in the future. He believed that his style of teaching promoted critical

thinking and that project work helped to develop the process of thinking. Teacher B

believed that his confidence with the success of telecollaborative project work has

allowed him to incorporate it easily and that many of his colleagues did not have the time

or opportunity to see its potential because they were preoccupied with curricular

demands.

A major point that Teacher B made was that he clearly saw differences between

international and national participants as far as what they were able to do and what they

were able to commit. He believed that international partners were often more committed

160


to the process and seemed to have more curricular freedom to implement Learning

Circles. He found the Circles experience most exciting when he had active participants

who were willing to try new and different approaches to project work. Recently he

learned about the Website Voicethread and introduced it to the participants of his current

Circle.

Teacher C

Teacher C first learned about iEARN from a teacher at her school who

participated in projects last year. The organization sounded interesting to her and she

investigated iEARN’s Website. A project that caught her attention was Learning Circles.

She has worked with various forms of educational technology in her classroom, but prior

to her participation in Learning Circles she had never participated in an online project.

Teacher C was expecting that her fifth grade students would get exposure to other

students around the world. She was hoping that her students would learn about other

places, other cultures, and gain some exposure to other students. She was also expecting

her students would gain some exposure to a new use of technology. Personally one of the

main expectations Teacher C had for Learning Circles was that she believed it fit nicely

and coincided with the requirements she had as a candidate for National Board

certification. Learning Circles appeared to fit the requirements for using technology and

global outreach in her teaching.

There were only a few teachers at Teacher C’s school who were using

telecollaborative project work. It was her belief that other teachers simply had no

exposure to online project work and resources such as iEARN. It was her goal to seek

public awareness through the local newspaper. She was proud of the support provided by

161


local community members and the Chamber of Commerce in helping her students put

together Welcome Packets for other schools in her Learning Circle. Educational

challenges have motivated Teacher C to improve the way she teaches. She looks for new

ideas and wants to incorporate new ways of teaching every year.

Teacher C attributed her interest in Learning Circles to an early cultural exchange

experience she had when she was eleven years old. She participated in a program in

which was chosen to represent the United States at an international summer village

promoting peace. She was very encouraged that her students were incredibly excited

about Learning Circles and really interested in how the project was going to develop. She

felt that she had a lot to learn and that her only barrier was her lack of knowledge in what

her abilities actually could be.

Teacher D

Teacher D was a media specialist from Georgia who taught grades Kindergarten

through 6th grade. Her school was a public school with a start-up charter that had as part

of its mission to have 50 percent local children and 50 percent children who were legal

refugees from other countries. She learned about iEARN and Learning Circles by

attending a presentation at an International Baccalaureate conference in the summer of

2008. She decided to attend the presentation because she was looking for ways to become

more internationally minded. At her school they were just beginning to search for

different ways to integrate technology into the curriculum.

Teacher D was expecting her students to geographically and culturally learn about

the similarities they shared with the students in the other schools in their Circle. She was

also hoping that her students would get some writing experience. Personally she was

162


expecting to learn about the telecollaborative process used in Learning Circles so that she

could evaluate its potential for use among other teachers in her school. She also was

excited about learning how to use other online applications such as Skype and

VoiceThread from the other participants.

As Teacher D examined the process, she believed that Learning Circles could

help with the teaching of some International Baccalaureate units. She was especially

seeking to incorporate the unit they were working on about beliefs that people have.

Teacher D was drawn to Learning Circles because she felt that it was her job to seek out

new and different ways of teaching and incorporating technology. She believed that often

classroom teachers did not have the time to investigate and incorporate new projects.

Teacher D also felt that Learning Circles was appealing to teachers looking for their first

telecollaborative experience because it had a long history and the process had been vetted

over a period of time. Teacher B also believed that new teachers would be well

supported.

Teacher E

Teacher E was the Advanced Learners Program Coordinator for a cyber charter

school in Pennsylvania. She learned about iEARN and Learning Circles while

communicating with a colleague from another virtual academy. Her teaching situation

was unique because she worked with students in Kindergarten through 12th grade but did

not see them face-to-face. The majority of her interactions with students were

accomplished by using a Web conferencing program called Elluminate. Her students

were supported in their local learning environment by learning coaches. Learning Circles

was an additional activity that students volunteered to participate in. She developed a

163


plan to encourage students to participate even though they would not be receiving grades

as a regular curricular subject.

Teacher E’s teaching experience was developed in a traditional classroom school

setting. During her career she sought to incorporate the use of technology and project-

based work. She believed that students learned a great deal through making projects and

presentations for their class. Even though she had experience with ICT and project work,

Learning Circles was her first experience with telecollaborative project work.

Teacher E was expecting that Learning Circles would serve as an enrichment

program for her students. She was expecting that Learning Circles could open up the

world for her students regardless of whether they were from a small community or a large

city such as Philadelphia. Personally she was expecting that Learning Circles would open

up her world to what other teachers were doing in different areas of the world. She also

believed that she would learn about the process of telecollaboration and that her

participation in Learning Circles could be expanded in future years.

At the current time Teacher E was the only teacher in her cyber school using

telecollaborative project work. She believed that other teachers in other cyber schools

were participating in this type of work. Teacher E also felt that she was drawn to this type

of activity because she believed that it had the ability to create excitement in her students,

and she also believed that students would learn through their participation.

Teacher F

Teacher F taught in a small public school in a rural village in Morocco. He first

learned about iEARN from a friend. After investigating the iEARN Website he thought

that the projects looked interesting and that they would be good for his students. He first

164


participated in telecollaborative project work with a school in Croatia prior to his

participation with Learning Circles. His school had computers, but they did not have an

Internet connection. In order to participate in Learning Circles he had to take his class to

a middle school or use the services of an Internet café where the manager gave him a

reduced rate in order to allow his students to participate in the project. One challenge he

faced was that his students only wrote in French. This communication barrier was

overcome by using language translation programs.

Teacher F was expecting his students would get more involved in this type of

international learning experience. He expected that Learning Circles would give them the

opportunity to think about sharing their ideas and that his students would be open minded

in how to use different media and technologies for their studies in their academic future.

Teacher F also expected Learning Circles to provide his students an opportunity to write

using a computer. He believed that the experience of sharing their work with other

students would be a learning experience for them. He was looking forward to his students

having this opportunity to write, do research, and provide commentary.

For himself, Teacher F expected Learning Circles to help him think more about

how to use informational technologies in teaching. He was also expecting to find

different approaches to teaching in order to enrich subjects in his curriculum in another

way. On a personal level, Teacher F saw Learning Circles as a new experience that he

hoped would help him to advance his professional level. As a teacher, he wanted to be

known for his use of technology in instruction.

The major barrier he expected to encounter was to find Internet access so that his

students could communicate with the other students in the Circle. The educational

165


curriculum at his elementary school did not have a specific program on how to use

technologies in education. They also did not have reliable computers in their rural school

so it was difficult for him to predict how he would accomplish all the tasks in Learning

Circles.

He believed that he was drawn to this type of activity because he has always been

interested in different projects. He felt that teaching could become a boring job if he did

not seek new ways of doing things. Teacher F believed that other teachers in his school

we reluctant to get involved in telecollaborative project works because of the language

barriers that existed. He also felt that other teachers simply did not have skills with

computers and the Internet. He believed that they did not have models in their schools to

show them how to benefit from using technology. When considering the future, he was

optimistic that there would be more participation in time.

Teacher G

Teacher G did not participate in the case study interview process. Interviews were

scheduled three times, but each time a technical problem using Skype or the Internet

occurred that did not allow the interview to be completed. Eventually Teacher G became

non-responsive to appeals to reschedule the interview by Skype or by phone. Repeated

attempts to contact her were eventually successful and at the end of November she

explained her silence. Apparently her schedule became crowded with many commitments

and her participation in Learning Circles required a great deal more time commitment

than she anticipated. At one point Teacher G was unsure as to whether or not she should

continue her participation. After some encouragement, Teacher G maintained her

participation in the case study group and did exchange student work with other members

166


of her Circle. In the initial online survey Teacher G did indicate her expectations. Her

major expectation was that her students would gain knowledge of students in other

countries. She was hoping that this would lead to greater multicultural awareness among

her students. Other expectation she had for her students were that they would develop a

greater proficiency with their English language and ICT skills. Personally, Teacher G was

expecting to learn more about the organization and collaborative elements of Learning

Circles.

Learning Circles Phases

Getting Ready for Learning Circles

Learning Circles is a telecollaborative project where teachers register their classes

to participate in an online project. Each teacher chooses which grade level he/she wants

to participate in as well as a broad theme (Computer Chronicles, Places and Perspectives,

Mindworks, or My Hero) for which his/her classroom will eventually sponsor a related

project. The teachers and students who participate in the project usually never see or

speak to each other. The communication, collaboration, and project work are

accomplished by posting messages to an online forum that automatically distributes the

messages to email addresses provided by the participating teachers. Generally, the

teachers communicate with each other and post the messages and project work the

students create. Some High School and Middle School Circles do allow student-to-

student interaction and communication. The goals of Learning Circles are to get

classrooms of students to learn about each other by exchanging cultural information and

to work together on different projects sponsored by the individual classrooms.

167


The first phase of Learning Circles consisted of participants completing the

registration process and preparing their classes for participation. The major tasks that

teachers were asked to perform are presented in Table 29.

Table 29

Getting Ready Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)

1. Read this Teacher's Guide and recorded timeline dates in lesson plan book.

2. Know how to send and receive messages.

3. Prepared my "Hello" message to send on the first day.

4. Explained the Learning Circle concept to my students.

5. Created a plan for sending, receiving, sharing and storing electronic messages.

The registration process for Learning Circles consisted of two phases. First,

teachers expressed interest by completing an online registration form at the iEARN

Website (see Appendix A). Teachers were asked to register online by September 15,

2008. After this, each teacher was sent an email that presented the tasks that would be

required of participants during the Learning Circles process (see Appendix I). Each

teacher was also asked to confirm his/her registration information. After each teacher sent

this information to the Learning Circles Coordinator they received a confirmation email

and an email called Circles News 1 (see Appendix J). This first message from the

Learning Circles Coordinator gave the teachers information on how to prepare their

classrooms for participation.

168


All teachers registered for their classes in the time frame described above except

for Teacher D from who registered during the third week of September. By this point the

research group was already determined. The decision was made to allow Teacher D to

enter since the school provided another unique dimension to the make-up of the

Elementary Places and Perspectives Circle.

Opening the Learning Circle

The opening phase of Learning Circles consisted of the time period when teachers

and students got to know each other by exchanging personal and cultural information.

After the grade level and project theme of the classrooms were determined, the Learning

Circle Coordinator subscribed them to a listserv. Learning Circles officially opened when

a message was sent to each listserv group (each Circle) that listed the name, country

location, and email address of each participant in the group. Facilitators for each group

were also designated. Facilitators were identified and chosen from a list of past

participant volunteers. The major tasks teachers were asked to perform for the Opening

the Circle phase are presented in Table 30.

Table 30

Opening the Circle Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)

1. Printed a copy of my Learning Circle partners' names and addresses.

2. Sent my "Hello" message to the Circle.

3. Student completed and sent Class Survey to the Circle.

4. Discussed or thought about possible Circle projects to sponsor.

169


During the first week, 6 of the 7 participating teachers in the Places and

Perspectives Elementary group (PPE1) posted a message that introduced who they were.

These messages ranged from very short introductions of 3 sentences to long multi-

paragraph biographical pieces. Teachers spoke about their teaching situation as well as

the unique qualities of their schools. Teacher B shared photographs of his school and

students that were posted on a Website. He also followed up his introductory email with a

lengthy biographical introduction that expressed a great deal of excitement in looking

forward to the opportunities that lay ahead for this group of teachers. Teacher E wrote

that she had already posted her introduction, but for some reason it did not appear in the

PPE1 forum and was not distributed to the other members. She was advised by the

Learning Circles Coordinator to repost her message. Teacher E also expressed a need for

help from the participants that had been veterans of past Circles. Teacher F was also a

first time participant to Learning Circles and expressed similar concerns about not

knowing what to expect or how to proceed. He expressed his excitement and confidence

in Teacher A (the group facilitator) to help lead everyone through the process. Teacher F

also asked the group to help find a solution to a problem he was facing. His students

wrote in French and he was wondering if he should post their messages in their native

language. Likewise Teacher C introduced herself to the group as a new member with no

experience. She also expressed excitement about the possibilities and described a bulletin

board she had constructed that featured the geographic locations of all the schools in the

Circle. Teacher A was the fourth teacher to post a message and expressed general

greetings, but very few personal details. She did help Teacher F to find some online

translation resources to help his students translate their written messages. At the end of

170


the week she posted a weekly status report message that used a checklist format to

indicate whether or not the teachers had completed all the tasks for the week. It was noted

that the group had not yet heard from Teacher G. The first week of Learning Circles for

the PPE1 group followed the plan presented in the Circle News 2 (see Appendix L) that

was sent to all members shortly after the opening of the Circle.

The teacher message phase of the first week was followed by the student

exchange of information during the second and third weeks. This process was facilitated

by the use of Class Survey template (see Appendix K) that was sent to all participants by

the Learning Circles Coordinator. The second week of Learning Circles began with

Teacher G sending a message that she had enjoyed reading the introduction messages

from the other teachers, but was confused why Teacher A wrote, "Let's hope we hear

from Teacher G this week." Apparently Teacher G had posted a message, but it was not

distributed to the members nor recorded in the forum. Teacher G included her

introductory message as a Word attachment. Teacher A thanked her for resending her

introduction, but the other members made no further mention of it. During the week,

general observations, local updates, and accounts of daily activities were exchanged

between PPE1 members. There was little discussion about the details in each other’s

messages. The majority of messages were more focused on reporting than interacting.

Teacher D sent a message asking the Learning Circles Coordinator where to post the

Class Survey and mentioned that she knew it was probably in the information sent to her,

but she could not find it because there was a lot to read. Teacher F was the first teacher to

post a Class Survey. He also asked how to send student messages inquiring if it was

better to send them one at a time or as one group message. Teacher A quickly responded

171


to all questions posed to the group. She also posted her student introduction as a

PowerPoint presentation and experimented with sending student messages using a rich

text format. Teacher A and a few other teachers experienced some difficulties sending

attachments with their messages. They worked together to figure out why some messages

would distribute attachments and others would not. No consensus was reached on how to

resolve the issue. Teacher A eventually decided to send the documents and pictures

directly to the email addresses of the other participants. Also the message sent in rich text

format could not be read by most of the teachers. Eventually it was reposted as a text file.

The exchange of student information continued with a flourish of information

being exchanged in the beginning of the third week. Teachers thanked each other for

sending pictures. Questions were asked on how to find previous messages and

attachments that were in the iEARN online discussion forum for the PPE1 group. This

forum also has a multimedia album where teachers could post movies, audio files,

PowerPoints, and other forms of media. Teacher B introduced the group to a Website he

used called VoiceThread (www.voicethread.com) and made a video available for the

teachers to view. He also made a request that the teachers send a few jpeg pictures of

their local community so that his students could create a VoiceThread project that

presented the geographical locations of all the members of the group. Teacher B further

requested that the other teachers send their postal mailing addresses so that he could

begin to send a Welcome Pack to every member of the group. He also volunteered to

send a list of group postal addresses once he collected all the information. Four of the

teachers who had never heard of VoiceThread expressed great interest in the product and

asked Teacher B about his use, but seemed to lose interest when they found out there was

172


a yearly membership fee associated with using the Website. Teacher F shared a personal

story about heavy rains in Morocco. Teachers were surprised by this revelation and

inquiries were made for him to explain more. Teacher C experimented with posting

messages directly in the iEARN online PPE1 forum to see if they would be automatically

distributed. She was successful and pleased that she had learned something new. Teacher

C also posted her Class Survey as an attachment. Teacher D posted her Class Survey as

email text rather than as an attachment. She also posted introduction letters from her class

that contained basic background information and details such as pets, hobbies, and

interests. Even though three Class Surveys were posted during the week there were no

discussions regarding their content. The only response a teacher made to a Class Survey

occurred when Teacher D responded to a reference about a waterfall mentioned in the

Class Survey posted by Teacher C. Even though the goal of the week was for all schools

to have finished their student introductions and Class Surveys, by the end of the week

only three schools had posted a survey and only two schools had posted student

introductory letters.

Planning Student Projects

The third phase of Learning Circles was a two-week period during which the

teachers were supposed to focus on jointly discussing and planning their projects. Since

the rest of Learning Circles was driven by the projects this was a crucial time period for

organization and planning. At the beginning of the week the participants received a copy

of Circle News 3 (see Appendix M) that described how to develop Project Ideas and the

importance of group discussion and negotiation of project choices. The goals for the

Planning the Projects phase of Learning Circles are presented in Table 31.

173


Table 31

Planning the Projects Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)

1. Discussed project ideas.

2. Selected a project to sponsor.

3. Project described to Circle.

4. Sent response to our own projects as a sample of what students should send.

5. Project descriptions posted.

6. Procedures set for assigning students to work on projects.

The PPE1 group approached the Project Idea phase with only 3 of 7 classrooms

having met their targets during the previous phase. The fourth week of Learning Circles

began with various classrooms still focused on student introductions and surveys.

Teacher B sent another VoiceThread and an appeal for missing postal mail addresses.

Teacher F sent both a PowerPoint presentation and Word document that contained

student pictures, messages, and the Class Survey. Teacher A posted a status report and

encouraged the group to send their surveys and student messages. Teacher A also

resorted to posting her message to the iEARN forum and individual email addresses to

make sure that everyone received the message. Teacher E apologized for having to play

catch-up and explained that her unique situation of working in a cyber school required

more time to get her students organized. Since her students participated as an after school

activity and never actually met face-to-face it was difficult for her to find a time when all

of them could meet to discuss their participation. She posted her mailing address and a

174


Class Survey. Teacher D announced that she had sent out Welcome Packs by postal mail

and was amazed that it only cost $1.95 to send a package to Morocco. Teacher A posted

her Class Survey as an attachment, but had to repost it three times because the forum

would not distribute it. Teacher E also posted her Class Survey and repeated her

explanation to the group members about the difficulty of getting all her students to

complete tasks in a cyber school setting. Teacher B sent pictures of his students mailing

their Welcome Packs and continued his appeal for missing postal addresses. Teacher C

sent a message to the Learning Circle Coordinator asking for ideas on how to develop

and write Project Ideas. She was concerned about expressing her lack of knowledge to

the group and was looking for examples. She was provided with links to the Teachers

Guide and Web page that featured sample Project Ideas from past participants. Teacher G

posted a message indicating that she had been away on a student trip, was tired, and

would try to post a message later in the week. Teacher C posted a message and a picture

announcing that her class would not be in school the for two days and that they would be

sending their Welcome Packs next week. She was proud that members of the community

were excited about her class’s participation in Learning Circles and had contributed local

information materials to share with the other classes. She also made an appeal for postal

addresses from all the members and hoped that someone had collated all the addresses

into one document. Teacher A informed the group that the Learning Circle Coordinator

had a list of all the postal addresses, but was later informed that this information was not

collected through the registration process. The fourth week of Learning Circles ended

with 5 of the 7 classes having posted their surveys and no discussion of Project Ideas.

175


Week 5 began with every teacher receiving a Project Idea Template (see

Appendix N) and a copy of Circle News 4 (see Appendix O) and to help teachers present

their Project Ideas. The Project Idea template was provided to help teachers identify their

goals and organize their ideas into specific requests. Circle News 4 continued to

emphasize the importance of group discussion and the process for putting together

Project Ideas.

Teacher A posted a weekly status report that reviewed a few of the events that

happened in the Circle over the previous week. Sensing that some of the teachers were

struggling with developing Project Ideas she also posted eight different suggestions for

teachers for possible projects. After this her message announced that her students were

sponsoring a project was called “Animals in Our Backyard.” An attached document

described the project. There was no discussion regarding the project and no explanation

for the project. This same project was an ongoing project that Teacher A had used for

many years in the past. The idea was essentially an information exchange investigation of

typical animals that students would find in their local environment. Teacher F posted a

Project Idea called “Vegetation in our Area.” This idea was an investigation into the

types and importance of local vegetation. Again there was no discussion or explanation

for the project choice. Teacher E presented a list of ideas developed by her children and

asked for feedback from the group members. She also described how she managed her

students and the project as a cyber school. Teacher G sent her Class Survey and some

student messages as attachments. She also made an appeal to the other members to resend

or help her find their Class Surveys since she was only able to locate the survey sent by

Teacher E. Teacher D sent a Web link to pictures of her students at school. Teacher B

176


created a VoiceThread presentation in place of his Class Survey, but it appeared that the

Circle facilitator and many members of the group did not realize that his students had

used a different format to present their work. During this time period, various classes

responded that they had received Welcome Packs from other classes. Teacher C

requested help with the message, “I am also looking for a little input and dialogue in

choosing a project related to geographical diversity.” Teacher A and Teacher E provided

a few suggestions, but no one else responded to her request. Later in the week Teacher C

responded that she was close to developing her Project Idea. Teacher E requested

electronic copies of Welcome Packs to send to her cyber school students. She also

presented an idea suggested by her Kindergarten students about children creating cultural

puppets.

By the end of the Project Development phase of Learning Circles the PPE1 group

had all 7 Class Surveys posted (even though many in the group thought they were

missing one) and only 2 of 7 projects finalized. All the schools in the group seemed to

gravitate towards sponsoring a project that centered on the theme of geography. There

was little discussion regarding the project choices, but when Teacher C did request help,

other teachers did respond and provided some feedback.

Exchanging Student Work

The fourth phase of Learning Circles is the time period when students work on the

project requests that were sent by other schools. They also work on providing information

and organizing their own project as they await information from other classrooms in the

Circle. Since a good deal of the work is done locally there are often times of great

quietness in the Circle. Generally there may be a few questions in the beginning,

177


followed by a time of quietness, and an ending when a flourish of information and

student work is exchanged. The goals for the Exchange of Student Work phase of

Learning Circles are presented in Table 32.

Table 32

Exchanging Student Work Checklist from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)

1. Sent one or more contributions to each Circle projects.

2. Sent weekly update messages.

3. Monitoring student progress on all Circle projects.

4. Deadlines set for the receipt of project work.

5. Calendar marked for deadline on each of the projects.

Week 6 of Learning Circles began with Teacher B clarifying some problems that

occurred when he posted his last VoiceThread. Apparently many members could not

view it. He also presented an outline of his Project Idea that focused on students

investigating their parent’s workday. Three teachers in the United States posted messages

describing the fall weather conditions in their local area and the recent celebration of

Halloween. There was also discussion among three of the members about the upcoming

election in the United States. Teacher C was still unsure whether to post her completed

Project Idea or to present the basic ideas. Teacher A and Teacher F encouraged Teacher

C to post her complete Project Idea and suggested that teachers could ask questions if

there were any areas that needed clarification. Teacher E informed the group that she was

called for jury duty and would be quiet at least for a week. She had ideas to share, but

could not finalize the project suggestions with her students due to her jury commitment.

178


Two of the teachers expressed their understanding. Teacher C presented the topic her

students had developed called "Our Place, Our Plate.” The project focused on the

resources that geographic location supplies to you for your plate. She promised that

details would follow shortly and they did later in the day. Teacher A attempted to get

more information about Teacher B’s project. Teacher G sent a project idea on the topic of

investigating the plants and animals of local forests. She had many questions about how

much work her students could reasonably accomplish since they had limited abilities with

English. She was also concerned that her students might not be able to finish all the work

in the time allotted for the exchange of student work. Teacher A advised her that she was

free to pick and choose projects that she thought would be best for her students and

easiest to accomplish. She also gave advice on how students could use PowerPoint to

give visual presentations that used limited written text.

Teachers continued to thank each other for the Welcome Packs that were

received. Teacher F also expressed his thanks for the received Welcome Packs and

explained that he also wanted to send some to the teachers in the United States, but that it

was costly to ship items overseas. He suggested that he could send to one school and they

could forward the items to each other. By the end of week 6, the PPE1 group had four

clearly developed Project Ideas and three that were close to completion. There was no

discussion about exchanging student work or how the work would be organized. A

Weekly Update message sent to the group by the Learning Circle Coordinator reminded

everyone that this could be a quiet time for the group, but that every member should

make an effort to check in at least once a week to give a progress report.

179


As the PPE1 group entered week 7, they had a good idea about all the Project

Ideas (see Table 33), but were lacking details for three of them. Teacher E wrote that she

was frustrated because she was still involved in jury duty and it prevented her from

communicating with her students and finalizing their Project Ideas. Teacher A assured

her that the group would accommodate her Project Idea even though it was arriving late.

Teacher D attempted to post her Project Idea as an attachment, but could not get it to

distribute automatically to the other members of the group. Eventually, she was able to

get it posted. Her students chose to sponsor a project titled “Explorers Who Were

Important to Your Area’s History.” Teacher B also posted a detailed Project Idea that

asked students to reflect on their parent’s work by investigating what they do and when

they go to work, More Welcome Packs arrived from Slovenia and the teachers and

students expressed “Thanks.” Teacher C had arranged for a local news reporter to come

to the class to report on their participation in Learning Circles and to witness the opening

of the Welcome Pack from Slovenia. Teacher G thanked Teacher B for the VoiceThread

created by his students and expressed how fascinated the students were in watching the

combination of narration and pictures. By the end of week 7, the PPE1 group had 6 fully

developed Project Ideas and one idea held up because of jury duty.

180


Table 33

Project Ideas for the PPE1 Circle

Teacher Location Project Idea

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Tennessee, USA

Oregon, USA

Ohio, USA

Georgia, USA

Pennsylvania, USA

Morocco, Africa

Slovenia, Europe

Animals in Our Backyard

Parents Work in a Day

Early Explorers in Your Area

Our Places, Our Plates

Cultural Puppets and 10 other various projects

Plants in Our Area

Forests in Our Area

The 8th week of Learning Circles was the quietest to date. Five different members

posted 9 messages. Teacher E posted a detailed Project Idea that was composed of 11

different projects that were developed by each of her individual students. In order to meet

the needs of her students in the cyber school environment, she had each student approach

the project phase of Learning Circles as an independent study. Each student had a

learning coach who worked with the child through the project process. She was thrilled

that her students had come up with so many creative ideas. The way in which she put

together her Project Idea did not fit with the method used by all the other teachers in

Circle. The Learning Circles guidelines asked teachers to develop one project per

classroom. When she posted her Project Ideas, none of the other teachers questioned her

posting of so many projects and the PPE1 facilitator posted her project titles without

181


details on her weekly status report. Teacher C provided a URL link to the news story that

had been written by a local paper on her students’ participation in Learning Circles. No

one else responded to her posting. Teacher F announced that he had returned after being

out of town. He shared some information about his painting hobby and attached three

jpegs of his work. No one responded to his message. Teacher A was the first to post

student work in response to the submitted Project Ideas. She posted student work for the

projects sponsored by Morocco and Slovenia. Teacher B posted a link for a blog for

devoted to students writing about Thanksgiving. He asked the other participants in the

group to make contributions to the blog. Teacher D shared ideas about how her class

would be using a Website to post all their project work.

Week 9 of Learning Circles coincided with the Thanksgiving holiday break

celebrated by most schools in the United States. Some of the districts had the entire week

off and others had at least Thursday and Friday off from school. The group exchanged

only 7 messages this week. Teacher B reminded everyone about the blog his class was

sponsoring. Teacher D wrote about the busy week at her school and confessed that her

students did not get to work on Learning Circles, but she promised that the following

week would be better. Teacher C expressed that she was considering creating a Website

to compile student work the same way that Teacher D had presented her idea. There

appeared to be some confusion regarding the final publication between Teachers C and

D. The Learning Circles Coordinator sent a message to them explaining how it was to be

accomplished. They were also provided with links to the Learning Circles Online

Teachers’ Guide so they could read about the entire process. Teacher A posted more

student work for Teacher C, Teacher D, and Teacher E. She also posted a PowerPoint

182


presentation with photographs showing a wildlife presentation that had been given in her

class by an outside speaker. Teacher F expressed Thanksgiving greetings to the teachers

from the USA. He also posted photographs of his students participating in a school wide

practice called Cooperative Day wherein students help to clean and fix up the school

surroundings. Lastly, he pledged to send his exchange of student work next week. By the

end of week 9, only Teacher A had exchanged some student work with other members of

her group.

At the beginning of Week 10 all Learning Circles participants were sent a copy of

Circle News 5 (see Appendix P) that provided instructions for completing the Exchange

of Student Work. Week 10 was the last week during which participants were supposed to

exchange student work for each other’s Project Ideas. The case study group began with

some controversy because Teacher B apparently sent a message outside the Circle

questioning Teacher F’s posting of 11 student projects. He wanted to know what

expectations the group had developed for participating in the projects. Teacher F posted a

lengthy message that again described how she had organized her students. She further

noted that in each Project Idea she posted a section where another class could share

information or provide some information. She confessed that she had not followed the

traditional format for Learning Circles and thought that each class would be working on

their own projects without any input from outside students or classrooms. She also

informed the group that she did not believe that any of her students would contribute to

projects other than their own. Teacher B also responded to the pictures sent by Teacher F

and posted a link to a Website that contained pictures of his own students who had also

participated in a school service day dedicated to planting trees. In another email he gave

183


an update on the progress his students had made in responding to the requests from other

schools. He promised that they would exchange their work by the end of the week.

Teacher D exchanged some more holiday greetings and described to the group how she

spent her Thanksgiving holiday. She also informed Teacher F that her students would

probably be responding to only one of the 11 projects posted by her students. Teacher F

gave some more details about the Website she was constructing for posting students

work. Teacher C gave a progress report on her students and described how they were

putting together PowerPoint presentations for each Project Idea. She also hoped to be

finished by the end of the week.

More discussion also took place on a variety of topics between the group

members during Week 10. Teacher B responded to Teacher F’s message from the

previous week and gave a brief description of the changing local weather. He also

provided a link for photos of a tree planting his students participated in. Teacher B also

gave an update of the progress of his students and jokingly asked the Teacher A, the

Circle facilitator, if the participants would get in trouble if they were a couple of days late

in posting their student work. Since he was a past participant, he knew that posting work

after the tentative deadlines is a common practice in Learning Circles. Teacher D gave a

progress update on herself and her students and again described how her students would

be posting all their work for other schools on a Website. She indicated that her students

would respond to one of the eleven requests posted by Teacher E. Her message ended

with a personal picture of her outfitted for some recreational tree climbing. Teacher C

also gave a progress update and indicated that her students would soon be sending

PowerPoint presentations of work for other schools. She also expressed how her students

184


had enjoyed the creative process. Teacher E thanked Teacher A for the work on cultural

puppets that was developed for one of her students’ Project Ideas. Teacher F also gave a

progress update and indicated that his students were working hard, but would be late in

submitting their work. He detailed the difficulty they had in getting computer time to

finalize the text for their projects. At the end of his message, he provided many pictures

of his students working on their projects. Lastly Teacher A thanked Teacher E for her

comments and expressed how her students enjoyed working on the cultural puppets

project.

Organizing the Circle Publication

During the Publication phase of Learning Circles teachers organize their students

to take the information they have received from other schools as well as their own

research and organize it into some type of presentation or final project. As an example, if

a classroom sponsored a project called Parent’s Work Day, they would be expecting to

receive stories or information from all the other classrooms in their Circles. They would

also contribute stories about their own parents to be included in their final presentation or

project. This final project can take on the form of a Word document, PowerPoint

presentation, Website, PDF file, Mp3 file, Wiki, blog, or some other type of cross

platform media. Classrooms have editing privileges to use the information they have

received as they wish. Final projects or presentations are then shared with the group. A

copy is also sent to the Learning Circle Coordinator who makes every project from every

Circle available as a download on a Web page. This phase of Learning Circles is

generally three weeks long, but the September to January session of Learning Circles is

185


four weeks long because it falls over the Christmas and New Years Day holiday. The

goals for the Publication phase of Learning Circles are presented in Table 34.

Table 34

Organizing the Circle Publication from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)

1. Discussed length and format of our section of the Circle publication.

2. Set deadlines for finishing and sending our section to others.

3. Finished our section.

4. Told partners when and how they will receive our section.

5. Marked calendar for when to expect sections from other classes.

At the beginning of Week 11, each Learning Circle member received a copy of

Circle News 6 (see Appendix Q) that provided information on how to complete the

Publication phase of Learning Circles. During this week the case study group posted

numerous messages that contained student work. It is not unusual for classrooms to send

their student work after the deadline and especially during the first week of the

Publication phase. During this week, 28 messages were exchanged. After a few weeks of

silence, Teacher G posted an update explaining that her students would be able to finish

some projects, but not all of them due to commitments with a school Christmas

celebration. She appealed for help and advice on what to do and expressed that she felt

very stressed. She did post some work for Teacher B. Teacher A responded quickly to the

message by Teacher G and assured her that work could be submitted within the next three

weeks. She also advised her to contact teachers to let them know what she planned to

submit and when. Teacher A posted a status report that displayed all the Project Ideas and

186


the work that had been submitted up to this point. She also described some of the holiday

activities taking place at her school and reminded the group that her students would be on

a winter holiday break for two weeks. Teacher B quickly responded to Teacher G and

thanked her for the stories her students created. He also explained to the group how he

would be posting on a Web page all the student work that was sent to the Parents’ Work

Day project sponsored by his students. Teacher F thanked Teacher G and Teacher C for

the Welcome Packs that were sent. He indicated that his students were especially

interested in the pictures and drawings. They were also fascinated by the game that was

sent, but were having a hard time following the rules. Teacher E set a lengthy message

that thanked Teacher A for extending the deadlines. She also again explained how she

organized her students and apologized that her students would not be exchanging work

with other classrooms. She invited all the members into an online Elluminate session that

she was having with her students during which they presented their projects. She also

indicated that all the work would be displayed on a Website. Teacher C responded that

her students would participate in the Elluminate session. Teacher G continued her

submission of student work by sending animal stories for the project sponsored by

Teacher A’s students. She also submitted student work for the project sponsored by the

students of Teacher F. Later in the day she also posted two photographs of her students

working on projects.

Teacher D posted a progress report message and indicated that her students were

working on a Website and would be finished in a few days. Teacher F also gave a

progress report update and pledged that his students would post their work in a few days.

He also indicated that his students had followed the idea of using PowerPoint

187


presentations and limited writing suggested by Teacher A. Teacher C sent a progress

report update and indicated that her students were creating PowerPoint presentations that

would be sent soon. She also shared that it was difficult getting computer lab time to

finish projects and that her students had enjoyed viewing all the work that had been

submitted.

Later in the week Teacher D posted the Website that contained all the student

work her students had prepared in response to all the Project Ideas submitted by other

schools. Teacher A posted a few student responses to the project posted by Teacher B and

indicated that there would be more by the end of the week. Teacher B asked Teacher A

for some advice on presenting projects on the Website created by his class. He wanted to

know if he should send the PowerPoint presentations his students created directly to

individual schools or simply make them available as downloads on the project Website

created by his class. Teacher A suggested that he do both so that he was sure every

teacher received the contributions created by his students. Later in the week, Teacher B

did send the PowerPoint presentations made by his students, but he encountered some

memory limit issues and eventually had to inform two teachers they would have to access

his Web page for the work his students created. Teacher D contacted the Learning Circles

Coordinator that her students had finished their participation and that all work was on the

Website they created. A message was sent to her that her students had not completed the

Publishing and Editing Phase. She was directed to Circle News 6 (see Appendix Q) as

well as the information presented in the Learning Circles Online Teachers Guide on how

to publish and edit final projects. She indicated that she partially knew her class had more

188


to do. She also enquired as to why her students had received very few contributions from

other classes.

The surprise of the week came from Teacher E who posted a Website of her

students’ projects and announced that they were finished with their participation. She

described in detail the online session that was held by her students and Teacher C’s

students. Each student in Teacher E’s class each presented his/her project. After this, the

students in both classes asked questions about each project. She described how it was an

amazing experience for her and her students. Specifically she described how it brought

the Circle to life beyond just being a series of printed emails or visual projects created by

each school. She thought that the opportunity her students had to meet other students in

their Circle helped them to understand that they were actually working on the same type

of projects with real people. She expressed that she would continue to work to

incorporate more “real time” meetings into future Learning Circles. In reflecting on her

first time experience with Learning Circles she thanked all the participating teachers for

their understanding and support. She also acknowledged that she realized that there were

many ways she could improve her students’ participation and she planned on

implementing those changes the next time her students participated. Week 13 ended with

students work submissions missing from almost every school and Teacher E believing

that her participation had been completed even though there were 30 days remaining in

the Circle.

Weeks 12, 13, and 14 coincided with the Christmas and New Year’s holiday

break. Traditionally this is a quiet time for Learning Circles, even though some teachers

will use this as a time to catch up. Teacher G used this time for this purpose even though

189


she indicated that she was feeling ill. She posted student work for three other projects, but

lamented that her students would not be able to finish the rest of the work until her

students returned from their holiday break on January 5th. Teachers A and E expressed

their concern for Teacher G’s illness and expressed wishes that she would recover soon.

They also gave her some ideas on how everyone could proceed while waiting for the

work from her students. Teacher A continued to lead the group by posting status reports

and providing information on how to complete and publish final projects. Teacher G

continued to send messages and expressed that she was feeling better and that she had

created a Website for her final publication. She also expressed holiday wishes for all the

members of the group. This led to a series of messages from other members who also

expressed holiday greetings. Teacher F also sent a Google Website link for the final

publication by his students. Initially the link did not work and after a few email

exchanges between Teacher A and Teacher F the problem was resolved and the Website

became accessible. At the beginning of January, Teacher A sent a final status report and

repeated the instructions everyone should follow to finish out their projects. She also

made it clear that she would still be online and that she would be available to support the

Circle.

Closing the Learning Circle

The last two weeks of the Learning Circles process are devoted to closing down

the Circle. The goal is to provide a time for each group to reflect on their experience and

say “Goodbye” before they part their ways. Often schools will also use this time to finish

up the last part of their projects. This frequently occurs in the September to January

session of Learning Circles since weeks 13 and 14 have been disrupted by the Christmas

190


and New Years Day holidays. The reason for this is that a good number of schools have

been on vacation for the previous two weeks. Due to this, the Closing the Learning Circle

phase and the last weeks of the Publication phase are often blurred. The Closing the

Learning Circle phase goals are presented in Table 35.

Table 35

Closing the Learning Circle from the Teachers' Guide to Learning Circles (2008)

1. Sent goodbye message to our Learning Circle.

2. Thanked Circle Facilitator and Mentor.

3. Gave out Learning Circle Certificates to students.

4. Made copies of publication for students to read and to place in the school

library.

Each participant in Learning Circles received a copy of circle News 7 (see

Appendix R). This was the final Circle News message provided by the Learning Circles

Coordinator to help guide the participants through all the phases of Learning Circles.

Circle News 7 provided participants with ideas for completing the Circle process, saying

“Goodbye”, reflecting on the process, and thinking about their future participation in

telecollaborative project work. The majority of members of the PPE1 group had

completed the publication phase either before the holiday break or over the holiday break.

In fact, by this point only Teacher C had not sent information about the final publication

for her class. All teachers in the PPE1 group followed the example of Teacher A, the

Circle facilitator, and opted to present the final publication as a Website. This is unusual

for Learning Circles. Generally only one or two schools in each Circle use Websites, and

191


most of the time high school students create these. During week 15, Teachers A, D, and E

each sent a “Goodbye message.” The messages were simple and thanked the fellow

participants as well as the group facilitator. Each teacher also expressed that they were

anticipating signing up for the next session of Learning Circles. The mystery of the week

was that Teacher C had not communicated in almost three weeks. She was the only

member of the group who had not posted a final publication.

The final week of Learning Circles ended with no further communication among

group members. Six of the seven members had submitted their final projects and said

their goodbyes. Only Teacher C remained quiet. She did complete the final online survey

in early January and did not indicate that there was any problem with her participation or

project. Repeated attempts were made to contact Teacher C. Eventually during the first

week of February she did respond to an email message. Apparently a family situation had

occurred that required her to take a leave and be out of town for a number of weeks.

When she returned she felt she did not have the heart to tell her students that they had

missed the deadlines for sending presentations. She did indicate that they were reviewing

the messages and projects that had been sent by the other participants. She also

reaffirmed that her students loved the experience and would like to participate in the

future. Teacher C made a special mention that she believed the real-time experience with

the cyber school in Pennsylvania resonated the most with her students. Teacher C was

encouraged by the Learning Circles Coordinator to complete her project even though the

Circle timeline had ended and the group had been disbanded. She was informed that other

schools post their projects late and that she could still stay in contact with the members of

her group by using their individual email addresses. As of the end of February, Teacher C

192


had not contacted any members, nor had she sent her project to be posted on the Finished

Project Page. For the six remaining participants of the PPE1 Circle, her silence at the end

remained a mystery in what otherwise could be characterized as a very successful Circle

experience.

Behavior of the Participants

As an outside observer, I had the opportunity to examine the behavior of

participants in their interactions with other participants. I specifically focused on their

posting habits, frequency of communication, response patterns, and attention to

deadlines. During the entire PPE1 Circle, the participants posted 189 messages for an

average of 27 messages per participant. The individual number of posts per participant is

presented in Table 36. The number of messages posted by the participants ranged from

17 to 59.

Table 36

Number of Messages Posted by Each Participant

Participant Number of Posts

(N=189)

Teacher A (Facilitator) 59

Teacher B 25

Teacher C 23

Teacher D 25

Teacher E 17

Teacher F 22

Teacher G 18

193


It is not surprising that Teacher A would have the greatest number of posted

messages. It is also not surprising that she would have sent over twice as many messages

as the other participants. Since her role was to encourage and respond to questions from

other members, she was in the position where she would be providing information on a

regular basis. The remaining six participants had similar posting totals.

There were some observations regarding the posting habits of some of the

participants that should be taken into consideration. Teachers B and D became very silent

after the first week of December and only posted one message during the remaining five

weeks. Teacher C became silent after the first week of December and did not post another

message during the last five weeks. Teacher E was silent for two weeks during the

Exchange of Student Work because she served on jury duty. She also essentially ended

her participation and posted a “Goodbye” message during the first week of December.

Teacher G showed sporadic posting patterns during the process. Initially she only

averaged one message per week for the first 7 weeks. After that she was silent for three

weeks and then posted 11 messages during the first two weeks of December. After that,

she was silent for the remaining 5 weeks.

The average number of messages posted per week was 11.8 with a range from 0

to 30. An examination of the posts on a week-by-week basis showed that frequency of

message posts were not consistent from week-to-week (see Figure 2). In fact, various

phases of Learning Circles appear to have motivated the participants to post more

messages than other phases. The first spike of message posting (the end of the major

phases of Learning Circles are indicated by colored lines) occurred during the exchange

of Class Surveys. Teachers posted 30 messages during Week 3. This was the most of any

194


week. The second spike coincided with the first week of the Publication phase. During

this week many teachers were posting student work to complete the Exchange of Student

Information and provide progress updates.

Figure 2. Messages Posted Week-by-Week

Messages Posted Each Week of Learning Circle

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Weeks

Messages

Legend

End of Learning Circle Phases Line Color

Getting Ready for Learning Circles Light Orange

Opening the Learning Circle: Blue Line Dark Blue

Planning Student Projects: Red Line Dark Red

Exchanging Student Work: Green Line Dark Green

Organizing the Circle Publication Brown

Closing the Learning Circle Indigo

The communication patterns of the participants in general showed a great deal of

enthusiasm in the initial phases. The first four weeks that included the Getting Ready and

195


Opening the Circle phases saw 64 messages exchanged between the participants. Over

one-third of the messages exchanged during the entire session were exchanged during

this “getting to know each other” time period. The Project Idea phase, which should have

been characterized by a great deal of discussion and negotiation among the Circle

members, saw only 30 messages exchanged over two weeks. Also, some of these

messages were still focused on the participants getting to know each other. The five week

long Exchange of Student Work was a very quiet period until the beginning of the

Publication phase when 28 messages were exchanged. From that point on only 22

messages were exchanged over the last five weeks.

The participants seemed eager to exchange greetings and cultural information, but

reluctant to engage in discussion regarding Project Ideas and student work. Since five of

the seven participants were first time participants to Learning Circles there should have

been an expectation for many questions or at least some discussion. There were, in fact,

very few messages that focused on actually discussing the types of projects and choices

the students and teachers developed for their Project Ideas. The general pattern for

responses appeared to be that when a question was placed before the group there was

often no response for a few days. After this the Circle facilitator would usually respond

and then one or two of the remaining participants would provide some information or

offer a confirmation to the response of the facilitator. Another pattern that frequently

occurred was that teachers such as Teachers B or F would share a story or a picture from

their school, but no one else in the Circle would respond or even acknowledge the story

or pictures. Every participant in the group did this at some point during the process, but

196


few received words of thanks or questions regarding their sharing of school or personal

information.

Each phase of the Learning Circle process had a deadline associated with it.

Initially teachers had one week to post a Teacher Hello Message and two weeks to

organize their class and post a Class Survey. Six of seven teachers sent a message

introducing him/herself within the first week and the seventh teacher posted hers a day

later. By the end of the third week only three of the seven teachers posted a Class Survey

even though this was the busiest week for message exchange during the entire process.

The fourth week should have begun with a discussion of Project Ideas, but four of the

seven teachers were still working on their Class Surveys. A two week time period was

allotted for discussing Project Ideas, but by the end of the fourth week there was no

discussion of Project Ideas, an unanswered question posted by Teacher C on how to

develop projects, and five of seven Class Surveys. There was some activity during the

second week of the Project Idea phase and limited discussion about projects. Most of the

discussion was focused on the question posted by Teacher C. Both Teachers A and F

posted a Project Idea without any discussion for their choices. The deadline for Project

Ideas was met by only two of the seven teachers by the end of Week 5. In fact, it was not

until Week 8 when the last of the seven Project Ideas was posted.

The Exchange of Student Work lasted for five weeks and each week saw a steady

decline in message exchanges. Two teachers did exchange some work, but most of it was

not sent until the first week of the Publication Phase when teachers posted 28 messages

that student work began to be exchanged. This continued through the second week of the

Publication Phase, but abruptly ended as Christmas approached. In fact, five of the six

197


projects that were finalized did not receive responses from every school in the Circle.

Teachers were quick to develop Websites to feature the projects and four of these were

completed during the Publication phase. The last two Website URLs were exchanged

during the Saying Goodbye phase. The PPE1 Circle ended quietly and slowly during the

first two weeks of January.

Assessment of Experience


Learning Circles is a project that was designed to allow teachers to engage their

students in telecollaborative project work. In assessing the experience of the participants

of the PPE1 group I focused on whether or not they were truly focused on

telecollaborative project work. The four major evidences I looked for were: (a) how they

used project-based learning, (b) did they experience collaboration, (c) what types of

projects did they complete, and (d) what was in those projects.


Telecollaborative project work is essentially composed of activities where

teachers and students use ICT to work collaboratively on project work. Many teachers

will also use project-based learning methodologies to accomplish this. Even though this

is not required as part of the Learning Circle process, it is promoted and teachers are

encouraged to use project-based learning methodologies with students.

No direct observations were made of the individual teachers engaging in Learning

Circle activities with their students. It was not possible to know if teachers actually used

project-based learning methodologies in their classrooms. In fact, in the initial interviews

with the teachers in the PPE1 group only Teachers A, B, and E professed strong

198


knowledge of the process and acknowledged that they had used it in the past with

students. Teacher A identified herself as a regular user of project-based learning with

students in Learning Circles activities. Teacher B identified himself more of a user of

problem-based learning with students during Learning Circles activities. Teacher E was

new to Learning Circles and did not know what methodology she would be using since

she taught in a cyber school setting and did not know what would work best.

During the Pre-Survey, the teachers completed a Project-based Learning Profile

that allowed them to self rate their teaching on 10 different areas associated with project-

based learning. Their ratings are presented in Table 37. Teacher A rated herself 26 out of

50 on the Project-based Learning Profile. The assumption was that teachers closer to a

rating of 50 should be displaying a stronger evidence of project-based learning in their

teaching. Her rating was more than one standard deviation (SD= 5.15) below the mean of

33.9 for the case study group. Some areas where she rated herself very low were in

classroom management, ICT use, and the development of a central question. The fact that

she worked with second grade students could account for low ratings in these areas. On

the critical questions regarding project creation she did give herself the top rating

indicating more of a preference towards project-based learning than problem-based

learning.

Teacher B did describe himself as a self-professed proponent of problem-based

learning and provided multiple examples of how he regularly uses both project-based

learning and problem-based learning with his students. In fact, the description of his

classroom and curriculum management provided a strong testimony to his extensive

knowledge of both practices. His rating of 38 seemed consistent with his testimony. He

199


also made it clear that he preferred to use problem-based learning with his students when

participating in Learning Circles and his rating on project work indicated more of a

preference for process over the final project.

Table 37

Project-based Learning Profile Scores

Participant Project-based Learning Profile Score

Teacher A (Facilitator) 26

Teacher B 38

Teacher C 34

Teacher D 29

Teacher E 32

Teacher F 39

Teacher G 39

In assessing the group in general there was mixed evidence of project-based

learning use among the teachers. Teachers F and G did give themselves the highest

ratings in the group. Teacher F spoke of using non-standard approaches to accomplishing

projects and was familiar with project-based learning practices. He felt he did use a

variation of project-based learning with Learning Circles because it seemed to fit the type

of work he wanted his students to accomplish. He believed his rating was lower in some

areas because he was working with younger children and felt the need to use more

teacher decision-making when it came to how to use and structure technology. Teacher G

did not participate in the interview process, but also spoke of using project teams and sent

pictures of her teams to the other participants in the PPE1 groups. Teacher C spoke of

200


using student groupings for Learning Circles but preferred to use a mixture of teacher and

student managed organization structures. She believed that because of her newness to the

process it was more comfortable for her to use a teacher-based model.

The mean ratings of the Project-based Learning Profile of the case study group

(33.9) placed them slightly lower than the larger group of participants (35.1). In assessing

the use of the case study group, Teachers A and B were strong proponents of the

methodology in this group and Teachers F and G displayed some use of project-based

management structures. The remaining Teachers C, D, and E did describe themselves as

familiar with project-based methods of instruction, but did not promote themselves as

proponents or regular users during this session of Learning Circles.

Collaboration

Looking for evidence of collaboration was an easier task than finding evidence of

project-based learning. Since teachers were asked to design projects that promoted

collaboration, there should have be activities and final projects that displayed student

collaboration. Each class in the PPE1 group sponsored a project that asked for

contributions from other classrooms (see Table 40) except for the projects developed by

the students of Teacher E. Teacher E worked in a cyber school setting and allowed her

students to develop projects that were individual and did not make use of collaboration.

The type of collaboration that was requested by each classroom was essentially an

Information Exchange (Harris, 1998). Classrooms were asked questions such as the

project sponsored by the students of Teacher A. Her students requested that the students

in the six other schools of the PPE1 group “Write about typical animals that would be

found in your backyard.” There were other examples of Information Exchange projects

201


posted by other classrooms. The students of Teacher D asked the other participants to

research and write about explorers who were important to their area’s history. Their

request stated, “We ask that your students learn about the history of their local area.

Specifically, please tell us about one or more explorers who ‘discovered’ and made an

impact on your area.” The students of Teacher C sponsored a project called “Our Places,

Our Plates“ and asked the other participants to investigate and report about how

geographic placement relates to natural resources and what they put on their plate. They

asked the participants to respond to the following three questions: “1). What resources in

your area contribute to what ends up on your plate?, 2). What does your community

produce?, and 3). Do these products go to other places? If so, where do you export?"

None of the classrooms sought collaboration in developing their Project Ideas,

and none sought collaboration on analysis. Instead, the type of collaboration they sought

was for other participants to add to their chosen topic by creating factual stories or reports

that provided information from their geographic area. None of the final projects provided

a comparison or analysis from the collaboration provided by other schools.

The only evidence of collaboration among students within classrooms came from

teachers describing how they organized their own individual students. Teachers A, B, and

G were clear that they used collaborative structures with their students to construct

student project teams. Teachers C, D, and F did not describe a strong use of collaboration

among their students and Teacher E definitely described that her students worked

individually on their projects.

202


Types of Projects

The final projects of the participants of PPE1 should have had a central theme and

feature the work of the host classroom as well as contributions from the other classrooms

in the Circle. Each classroom chose a theme that centered on some aspect of geography,

except for the students of Teacher E. Their projects were individual projects that focused

on multiple themes. Since the main theme of this Circle was Places and Perspectives the

remaining six classrooms did correctly interpret the goals of the project, which was to

design projects that make use of geographic diversity.

Learning Circles is comprised of activities that can be identified using Harris’s

(1998) classification of telecollaborative activities. The project begins with interpersonal

student exchanges of cultural information. This is essentially a Keypals activity followed

by a Class Survey that utilizes a Question and Answer structure. After the opening phase

classrooms are expected to sponsor a project that usually is a variation of the Global

Classrooms structure or possibly becomes more advanced into being an Information

Collection and Analysis or Problem Solving structure.

None of the Project Ideas developed by the PPE1 group were examples of

Problem Solving structures. Most fell into the category of Information Collection and

Analysis. The structure that was preferred by most of the participants was an Information

Exchange and each ended with a variation of Electronic Publishing. The participants

preferred to exchange information about topics such as local plants, forests, animals,

explorers, and foods. The class of Teacher B attempted to have the participants explore

and contrast the workday of their parents, but none of the other schools provided enough

information to fully develop an analysis of the data.

203


Completion of Projects

The goal of the Final Publication sponsored by each classroom in Learning

Circles was to take all the work that was created and submitted by students in other

schools and put it together in some type of final publication. The final publication should

have been edited and should have also contained work from the sponsoring school. Each

of the teachers and classrooms in the PPE1 group chose to present their final project as a

Website. This was unusual for Learning Circles. Often there are only two or three

Websites for each session. For all six classrooms that presented a final project to choose

Web publishing was unique. It is possible that many of the teachers took their lead from

Teachers A and B, who regularly have published their projects on the Web in the past.

The final projects can be seen as an example of how each teacher interpreted the

projects and how they guided their students to fulfill this major element of Learning

Circles. Teacher A was the group facilitator and has had nine years of experience in

completing projects. The final project completed by her students contained work from all

the other schools in the Circle. Since her students were in second grade, there was strong

evidence that Teacher A put together the Website. All the work was posted as a

downloadable separate Word document and it was not possible to navigate between the

different projects to make comparisons.

Teacher B also had extensive experience with preparing final publications for

Learning Circles and he has an established reputation of empowering his students to take

control of as much of the process as possible. The Website contained contributions from

the students of Teacher A and G and it was possible to navigate between stories. The site

featured a PowerPoint by the students of Teacher A and scanned pictures by the students

204


of Teacher G. The students of Teacher D had submitted work for this project, but it was

not included. The students of Teacher C did not submit a final publication. The students

of Teacher D also sent a Website that was teacher created. It featured the work the

students created for all the other schools in the Circle, but it did not contain the work that

was submitted by students from those schools. All the work was presented as navigable

Web pages. The work of the students of Teacher E contained the individual projects of

her students. The work submitted by the students of Teachers A and F was also included,

but the work submitted by the students of Teacher D was not included.

The two teachers from schools outside of the United States also created Websites

that featured student work. The final project sponsored by the students of Teacher F was

a series of Web pages that contained work from the students of Teachers A, B, D, and G.

It contained work by his students written in French. The project sponsored by the

students of Teacher G was also a Website, but it only contained work submitted by the

students of Teachers A and F. All of these were made available as downloadable Word

documents. The Website also contained the work the students created for the projects

sponsored by the students of Teachers A and F.

In summary, the final projects were very mixed in their success and appeared to

be mostly teacher created. Only the project sponsored by the students of Teacher A

appeared to be complete and the remaining projects were mixtures of what the students

created and received. There were at least two instances where student work was posted

for other schools, but it was not included in the final publication of the sponsoring school.

205


How the Participants Described Their Experience

The participants of the PPE1 group had the opportunity to provide assessments of

their progress during the project and at the end through surveys, email progress reports,

and questions that were sent to them directly by email. Their assessment of their

experience in their own words provides some insight into what they experienced.

Initially the participants expressed diverse expectations for their Learning Circles

experience. Teachers A and B had extensive experience with Learning Circles and

Teacher F had some limited experience with telecollaborative project work. Teacher A

expressed that she was expecting “to engage students in a collaborative project with their

peers and publish completed work.” She also was expecting Learning Circles “to improve

my students reading and writing skills.” Teacher B looked at his expectations in three

ways and expressed that personally he was seeking “to commit the time to complete

projects and to do the best under the circumstances.” For his students he was expecting

them to “appreciate and understand other cultures, as well as see the similarities and

differences,” and for the other participants he was expecting “that everyone respond to all

the projects in some form.” Teacher F was expecting to improve his way of teaching and

“to use the methodology of projects to involve students in new way of learning.” For his

students he was expecting “to give them the opportunity to meet other students from

other cultural backgrounds” in order to “make them more aware about our differences

and similarities.”

Teachers C, D, E, and G had no experience with Learning Circles and limited

exposure to telecollaborative project work. Their expectations each focused on bringing

some type of global exposure experience to their students. Teacher E expressed this by

206


writing; “I expect that my students will grow to learn more about the world and the

cultures of people throughout the world by participating in the Learning Circles.” Some

of the other expectations they held were that their students would also improve their

language skills, ICT skills, and that in general that they would “become excited about this

project and it will make learning fun.”

By the end of five weeks the teachers provided a progress update on how their

project was going. This coincided with the end of the Project Idea phase of Learning

Circles. Four teachers had changed their expectations, but only three provided reasons for

their change. Two teachers expressed that they had expected more student exchanges or

“time and opportunities for students to meet” and have “real contacts.” The third teacher

expressed that her expectations changed because she did not fully know what to expect

when she began. The teachers also provided detailed reports about their progress. Teacher

A, the facilitator of the group reported, “Our circle is very active and engaged. It is a

diverse group of cultures and grade levels. Although there are five schools in the US,

they are all very different culturally.” This was in contrast to the other members of the

group who tended to focus on some of the challenges and difficulties they were facing.

Some also addressed how they were confronting their expectations.

Teacher C wrote,

The Learning Circle is working pretty well for me. We are enjoying the correspondence and are looking forward to being a part of the projects…All aspects are working well for us. I did, however, expect a little more dialogue pertaining to project choice. I really had nothing to base my expectations on.

Teacher D expressed some management issues and disconnection from the group,

It is o.k., but the different e-mails coming in at different times gets confusing. And the work on this gets lost in all the other things we are doing at school. Also,

207


I feel like I am much more connected to the group than the students are, since I get all the e-mails.

Teacher G wrote,

I am stressed; perhaps I have chosen too difficult a topic for my students' skills. We feel a lack of time. I wish we could have more time to really develop relationships and then finish the projects. The work could be better done then. I like cooperating with other teachers a lot.

Teacher B provided a balanced look at his progress by expressing, “Every Learning

Circle has its ups and downs and surprises... My children are really excited by our

projects and are getting some really great learning about things in our neighborhood and

around the world.” He also acknowledged that “Time is always a pressure and the

balance with other curriculum is always a dance.” Not all the reports were negative.

Teacher F summarized his progress by writing,

Until now, most of the things I expected from this Learning Circle experience I met. For students there is this excitement to discover the others and to share with them. And I feel it as a good beginning to go through the next phase of this experience. For me, I realize on a practical level how we can do in a different way with some of the curriculum topics using digital supports and working with telecollaborative projects. I realize also that without an easy access to computers and Internet this experience will be very challenging.

Teacher E wrote, “I have found the elementary team to work very well…The students

seem to love the idea of working collaboratively on these projects.”

At the end of ten weeks, which also coincided with the ending of the Exchange of

Student Work phase, the participants provided another progress report on their project. At

this point in the process, Teacher G stopped providing progress updates. She did express

that she was overwhelmed with a local school holiday project and would only be able to

participate in the project in a limited way. The remaining six teachers did provide updates

and did write about their expectations and progress.

208


Two teachers reported that they had changed their expectations over the previous

five weeks. Teacher D reported that she did not expect it to be a very good experience for

her students. Teacher E reported that she had modified her expectations based on what

occurred within the Circle. She believed that she had interpreted what she and her

students should have done for the Project Idea phase and that in the future she would be

better prepared to lead her students in developing Project Ideas that could more

collaborative in nature.

Each of the six participating teachers gave a progress update. Teacher A, the

facilitator of the group, continued to provide a positive summation of the experience,

“Our Learning Circle is very active and members are committed to meeting the goals of

the projects. We have had many ideas submitted. Exchanges between teachers and

students have been very interesting and exciting.” Each of the remaining five teachers

provided reports that were mixed in their enthusiasm. Teacher C expressed her delight

with the “opportunity that the Learning Circle provides for my students to engage in a

technologically based activity.” At the same time she reported that, “The demand for the

time taken to do this has been a little difficult to fit in.” Teacher B also addressed the

problem of time by reporting,

It comes down to a crunch every time... I can better plan, but the best laid plans... I guess we are all active teachers... I enjoy the contact with the other teachers so much and sharing information with my students. Also, my kids have a real audience for their projects.

Teacher D was clearly having a negative experience, “It has not been so good so far. It

feels disjointed because participants send in different things at different times. I don't

really know what to expect or when.” Both Teachers E and F began to take a long-term

209


look at their experience and attempted to project what this might mean to them in the

future. Teacher E wrote,

Now that I have been through the Circle (almost) completely, I feel that my experience will help me through the Circles I will run in the future. What is working is positive staff feedback and information. What is not working is the amount of work required of us, since we are in a virtual environment. I think I can make this work better in the future.

Teacher F reflected on how this would impact his teaching,

This interesting experience will involve me more in other experiences with telecollaborative projects. And push me more to use ICT as to approach some topic of the curriculum. I did share this experience with some colleagues and friends and some of them show their interest to try it. My students were very excited during all the process and especially the short moments they were working in the computers. The access to the Internet was for my students and me the big challenge. And this is why the expectations weren't completely met.

At the end of Learning Circles the teachers reported their observations on their

entire experience. Teachers D and E identified that they had changed their expectations

since the project began. Teacher C did not realize she had earlier expressed a change at

the end of five weeks and Teacher G, who had earlier expressed a change, did not

participate in the post interview process. Teacher D reflected that she realized there were

specific actions she could have implemented to get her students more involved in the

experience. Her change in expectations was for herself and what she could accomplish

with her students through the experience. Teacher E expressed that originally she had

expected her students to be exposed to the global community, but that in actuality they

received more experience with creating independent projects. She believed that she

learned from the project ways she could change her teaching to better fulfill her original

expectations. She also believed that Learning Circles had the potential to meet even more

expectations than she had originally envisioned.

210


The teachers were very enthusiastic when they were asked about what their

students gained from the experience. Teacher A felt that her students were definitely

more motivated to work to complete their projects than they were with ordinary

schoolwork. Teachers B and D saw that their students were turned on to knowing more

about the cultures of Morocco and Slovenia. Teacher E enthusiastically stated, “I saw

students complete projects that far exceeded my expectations for their grade levels. I had

a kindergartner complete a PowerPoint with 30+ slides. I was in awe!” Teacher F found

that he was able to enhance his students’ regular curricular work in the areas of writing

and research through the use of telecollaborative project work.

Teachers were asked about their own personal expectations. They had less to say

about what they believed they had gained from the experience. Their answers focused on

project management skills such learning new project creation tools such as VoiceThread.

Teacher E became analytic of the effect of her teaching style on students and

acknowledged, “I know now that I should not limit my expectations of students” and she

remarked that giving “freedom with some structure is the best way to allow them to

grow.”

The teachers in general were reflective about their experience and progress over

the 16 weeks of the project. They acknowledged that they did not accomplish everything

they set out to accomplish and that some of their projects were incomplete. Some of the

teachers identified areas of the project that could be improved and all the participants

wished that the other participants were more active and more committed. Essentially,

they were looking for more interaction and better ways to connect students to each other.

Teacher A saw Learning Circles as building connections between classrooms globally

211


and between her students locally. She also added, “Students are actively engaged in

meaningful project work that is published. Students and teachers learn from each other

about their culture.” Teacher B also addressed this theme by reflecting that, “I loved the

collaborative effort between classrooms and was thrilled to have national and

international exposure to other classrooms, “I love being involved with other cultures,

students, and teachers to help broaden my understanding of the world we live in.”

Teacher C also expressed a similar sentiment by stating; “I loved the collaborative effort

between classrooms and was thrilled to have national and international exposure to other

classrooms.” Teacher F summarized his experience with the following words,

It was a great and enjoying experience for my children and me: It allowed me to experience a new alternative to approaching themes of curriculum. And for the kids it was an interesting experience in which the important "writing skills" goes with the pleasant “writing in computer, sharing and working together with friends abroad.”

212


CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY

Introduction and Organization

This chapter begins with a review of the study’s purpose, a summary of the

findings, and an examination of how the findings addressed the research questions

presented at the beginning of the study. The chapter ends with recommendations for

telecollaborative project work, a discussion of limitations of the study, and suggestions

for further research.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to understand the expectations that lead teachers to

use telecollaborative project work with students. This research sought to identify and

understand the expectations teachers brought to a project and provide answers as to

whether or not they actually realized the expectations that drew them to use

telecollaborative project work. The experiences of teachers as they participated in this

practice and the stories they had to tell helped to provide an understanding of what it was

like for a teacher to participate in a telecollaborative project. This research identified

what teachers personally and professionally hoped to gain and realize from their

experience. Teachers used their experience to provide insight and suggestions on changes

that could be made to improve the experience. Lastly, this study provided insight on why

some teachers continue to use telecollaborative project work.

Summary and Discussion of the Findings

The main focus of this study centered on following one Learning Circles project

group of seven teachers to understand their expectations for Learning Circles and the

actual experience that transpired during the project. Information was also collected

213


through the use of survey instruments from the larger group of 57 participants to

triangulate and confirm the results conducted from the small research group. It was also

anticipated that each group would be able to inform, clarify, or add understanding to the

other. Data collection for the small group occurred continually throughout the September

2008 Learning Circles project. Data collection for the larger group occurred in four

phases during the online surveys that were administered. Since information was collected

from each group, I will address each group separately and link their areas of similarity

and highlight areas where they differed.

Teacher Expectations

Research Question 1: What are the expectations teachers have for their students and

themselves that motivate them to use telecollaborative project work in a K-12 school

setting?

The small case study group of teachers identified many expectations they had

from Learning Circles that included providing a global education experience, improving

language skills, adding telecollaboration as a new teaching methodology, improving

students’ use of technology, and providing enrichment to the curriculum. Overall, when

forced to decide on their primary expectation they identified that they were expecting

Learning Circles would promote student global awareness and expose their students to

other cultures. Essentially teachers were expecting a cultural experience. Since the

majority of teachers in the case study group were new to Learning Circles, they did not

know what to expect or even how their students would gain this experience. Initially it

seemed that the Exchange of Cultural Information phase of Learning Circles that

occurred with the use of Class Surveys and student messages was seen primarily as the

214


only opportunity for students to exchange cultural information. By the end of the project,

it appeared that the teachers also began to see the project phase as an opportunity to learn

more about cultural differences. The project choices reflected that teachers and students

were looking primarily for information that was geographic or historical in nature and did

not pose questions that asked students for opinions, ideas, or beliefs. Only Teacher B

actually sponsored a project choice that focused on the experiences of individual

students. It is possible that the participants in the case study did not see this as one of the

goals of the theme or did not realize that their project choices could actually be

opportunities for students to learn about cultural differences. This possibility was

addressed in Circle News 3 (see Appendix M) and during four Weekly Update messages.

The larger group of teachers overwhelmingly confirmed the same primary

expectation as the smaller case study group and more. Teachers were looking for a global

education experience, to improve student language skills, find new teaching ideas, add

telecollaboration as a new teaching methodology, provide enrichment to the curriculum,

and improve their students’ use of technology. Some participants expressed frustration

that their students did not have student-to-student contact with students of other cultures

and were only able to express themselves through impersonal Class Surveys or penpal

type of messages that were not directed to any individual in particular.

Realization of Expectations

Related Question 1A. How do these expectations change over time as teachers and

students participate in a telecollaborative project?

Teachers in the small research group did believe overall that the Learning Circles

process was meeting their expectations. By the end of the Project Idea phase, three of the

215


teachers new to Learning Circles did indicate that they did change their expectations. One

of these expectations was positive and reflected that the teacher was changing

expectations based on the new things she was learning. The other two teachers were

expecting more student-to-student interaction. By the end of the Student Exchange of

Information only two of the new teachers were still changing their expectations. One

teacher felt that she now understood the process and would be able to do a better job of

implementation so that her students could gain more from the process. The other teacher

did not believe that this was a good experience for her students. By the very end of the

project the teachers were asked to assess their overall experience and reflect if they had

changed their expectations. The same two teachers felt they had changed their

expectations, but their responses mostly displayed self-reflection on their role in the

project. One teacher expressed that she realized that she needed to do more work to get

her students more involved in the project. The second teacher reflected,

I expected my students to be exposed to the global community, but I saw that my students got more experience with creating independent projects. Although my expectation for this circle changed, I learned about what I'd like to do differently in the future to meet more expectations.

The larger group was split on whether or not Learning Circles was meeting their

expectations. By the end of the Project Idea phase 49% had changed their expectations

and 51% had not. In general, nearly 30% of those who gave a reason for their change

expressed that the experience had been more positive than expected. The remaining

participants responded that their expectations had changed in a negative way. The most

common reason was that teachers felt the project was more work than they expected.

Other reasons given were that they expected more commitment and participation by the

other participants. Another major concern was that teacher were expecting more

216


opportunities for direct interaction among students. These same negative expectations

would be a common theme expressed throughout the project.

The middle and high school Computer Chronicles groups encountered unique

problems that are worth mentioning. Both of these groups became essentially inactive

and only a few teachers from these two groups completed a project. Members of the

middle school Computer Chronicles group actually sent inquiries to the Learning Circles

Coordinator complaining about other members of the group and expressed that they were

waiting for someone else to take the lead. They wanted strong leadership or someone else

to actually chose their projects. Due to the fact that no one was willing to be the first to

post messages or exchange ideas, the participants simply stopped communicating and the

entire Learning Circles communication process stopped.

By the end of the Student Exchange of Information, 43.9 % of the larger group of

participants had changed their expectations and 56.1% had not. Of those who provided a

reason for their change, 26.3% continued to express that their change of expectation was

because they were finding more positive outcomes from their experience then they

initially expected. Negative comments continued to focus on the fact that participants

found the project more work than they expected and they were still dismayed that the

other participants were not responding as much as they had expected. Two teachers

commented that they had to change their expectations because they were experiencing

some local technical problems.

At the end of the project 41% of the participants felt that they had changed their

expectations since they began the project and 59% felt they had not. Of those who

provided a reason, 31% continued to express that their change of expectation was that

217


they found the project to provide more positive outcomes than they had originally

expected. Those who expressed negative changes continued to focus on the project as

being more work than expected and they also continued to feel that their change in

expectations was due to the fact that they had expected more participation by the other

participants.

In comparing the large and small group it appears that the teachers of the smaller

group were able to reflect more on how their expectations had changed. Possibly because

they were asked to reflect on their experience in an interview, the case study teachers

expressed that they could change their actions in the future to make the experience better

for their students. Some of the larger group members were frustrated by the lack of

responses by their Circle members, and they were not able to fully realize the

expectations they initially had for the project. The case study group also experienced

inconsistent participation by members, but they never made an issue of this and focused

on their forward progress. In the end, both groups seemed satisfied with their experience

and it is possible that had individual stories been collected from the large group they

would have displayed a more positive outlook on their experience. Previous research on

the role of teacher reflection in telecollaborative work seems to indicate that teachers

largely focus on the negative aspects of their experience because of their different views

of the project (Basharina, Guardado, & Morgan, 2008; Ding, 2009). In this session of

Learning Circles, the case study group appears to have worked past this point to finding

solutions for improving their experience.

218


Student and Teacher Expectations

Related Question 1B. What do teachers believe they and their students have gained by


Teachers in the case study group were initially given the opportunity to

specifically speak about their expectations for their students and themselves. At the end

of the project, they were given the opportunity to reflect back on the project in order to

assess what they believed their students and themselves had gained through their

participation. Initially the case study teachers expressed that they were really looking for

their students to develop greater proficiency in the skills associated with telecollaborative

project work. They were expecting to see progress with students sharing cultural

experiences, learning about other countries, working in a team collaboratively,

developing communication and language skills, gaining problem solving skills, and also

developing greater proficiency with technology literacy. Throughout the project until the

very end, the case study teachers saw the experience as meeting at least some of their

expectations and over half strongly indicated it leaned more towards fully meeting their

expectations. They continued to emphasize that students were engaged and were

motivated to communicate and collaborate with students in other classrooms. They also

reaffirmed that their students were experiencing the exposure with students from different

parts of the world that they expected. By the end of Learning Circles, the case study

teachers were able to identify some lasting value and learning that their students had

gained from their participation in Learning Circles. They found that the project had

indeed created an interest in their students for other cultures. The teachers from North

America found that their students were especially fascinated with both Morocco and

219


Slovenia. The teachers also identified that their students were motivated to work hard on

their projects because of the fact that they had exposure to an authentic audience and

were sharing work with students in other parts of the world. This appears to confirm

previous research that found that students who engaged in telecollaborative activities that

used inquiry-based models showed growth in cultural understanding (Cifuentes, Murphy,

and Davis, 1998; Wang, Poole, Harris, & Wangemann, 2001) and learning how to work

together to carry out complex, interdisciplinary projects (Katz & Chard, 1989; Markham

et al., 2003; Riel, 1990c; Schulz-Zander et al., 2002; Spaulding & Lake, 1991).

When the case study teachers reflected on their own personal goals for Learning

Circles, they initially identified that they were expecting to develop professional skills

that would allow them to become better implementers of telecollaborative project work

with students. Five of the seven teachers who participated in this session of Learning

Circles were new to the process so this became their priority. The teachers were also

expecting that they would learn some new ways of becoming more technologically

proficient in their teaching. They were also expecting to gain some cultural understanding

from the different teachers and students. One teacher remarked that she was expecting

expand her own understanding of what students could actually accomplish.

As the project progressed, teachers were mixed on what they were gaining. In

general, they confirmed that Learning Circles was meeting at least some of the

expectations and the majority expressed that it was strongly meeting their expectations.

When they were asked to identify what they thought they were gaining, they had many

different responses. Two teachers saw themselves as learning the skills of

telecollaboration, another teacher was learning new uses of technology such as

220


Voicethread, introduced by another participant, and another teacher believed she was

“growing as a professional by communicating with teachers from all around the world

and meeting their expectations as well.” By the end of the project the teachers believed

they had personally gained skills that allowed them to manage telecollaborative projects

in their classroom. One teacher also remarked that she had realized that she should not

limit her expectations for her students and that she should give them more freedom in

constructing their own learning.

The large group of teachers was asked to indicate their initial expectations for

their students and themselves through the use of open-ended questions and online

surveys. They were also asked to reflect on what they believed their students and

themselves gained by participating in Learning Circles. The teachers were strongly

looking for a global education experience in which their students would be exposed to

students from other parts of the world. They were also looking for their students to have

opportunities to improve their language skills. For some teachers this meant improving

their English skills and for others this meant improving the writing and communicating

skills of their students. To a lesser extent, they were looking for ways to motivate and

enrich their students as well as provide them with a technology experience.

As the project progressed through the Exchange of Cultural Information phase,

teachers did find that their students showed an increased global awareness of the students

they were working with. They also found that their students’ interests and motivation for

telecollaborative project work increased, and they became more focused on their project

work. As the project progressed to the end of the Exchange of Student Work phase,

teachers observed that their students focused less on global awareness, but continued

221


their interest, motivation, and focus on telecollaborative project work. At this time

teachers were asked to choose their number one student expectation on Interim Survey II,

and they confirmed what they chose in the beginning. Their number one response at

43.9% was to promote student global awareness and exposure to other cultures, and the

second highest response at 22.0% was to provide students with opportunities to improve

their language and communication skills. The fact that teachers chose promoting global

awareness as their number one choice did not match what they indicated on their

experience update, because at this point in the project they indicated that they were

finding that their students were experiencing more growth in their interest and focus with


By the end of the project the teachers were asked to reflect on what they believed

their students had achieved through their participation in Learning Circles. Student

interest, motivation, collaboration, and focus on telecollaborative project work were

chosen by two-thirds of the teachers and increased global awareness was chosen by

19.3% of the teachers. This category had dropped in importance through each survey.

A comparison between the small and large group showed more similarity by the

end of Learning Circles. The small case study group appeared to be more aware early on

that their students were gaining more from their focus on telecollaboration. The case

study teachers provided some insight into this when they expressed that their students

were able to see the project work as being an extension of the cultural awareness that

occurred through the Exchange of Cultural Information phase. Instead of learning facts

and details about students and other classrooms, they were learning about them through

their writing and interests.

222


At the end of the project, the large group of teachers was also asked about their

expectations for their own personal growth, and they were asked to identify the areas they

believed they had grown the most. Initially teachers expected that they would develop

more professional skills. Many teachers identified that they were expecting to improve

their skills with implementing a telecollaborative project, but most did not specify the

types of professional skills they were hoping to develop. Others believed they would

learn by being exposed to other teachers, and they would improve their ICT skills. Again,

teachers were not specific on what they would learn and what kind of ICT skills they

were hoping to improve. As the project progressed through the Exchange of Cultural

Information phase, the teachers clearly saw themselves as developing project

management skills. They were also developing an understanding of the skills needed to

implement telecollaboration as well as a greater confidence with their technology skills.

By the end of the Student Exchange of Work the teachers continued to express

that they were developing skills related to implementing telecollaboration and

technology. The number of teachers expressing development of project management

skills decreased, and a new category emerged that indicated teachers began to see areas

of personal character growth they had not expressed before. When teachers were asked to

choose their number one expectation, they strongly confirmed at 59.5% that they had

hoped to gain experience with telecollaborative project work. In second place at 19.5 %

they expected to gain and exchange creative ideas with other teachers, and in third place

at 12.2% they hoped to develop friendships and expose themselves to teachers from other

cultures. Again these choices seemed to highlight a disconnection between what they

originally expected and what they had been experiencing 10 weeks into the project. By

223


the end of the project, teachers indicated a variety of areas where they believed they had

made gains, but there was no one strong area of growth. Almost one third of the teachers

indicated that they had seen their personal teaching skills grow, but they chose not to be

specific in identifying those skills. It seemed as if teachers believed they had grown, but

could not specifically explain how they had grown. Six out of twenty-nine teachers

believed they had experienced global awareness of teaching in other countries, and five

teachers continued to believe that they had developed skills in implementing

telecollaborative projects.

A comparison between the small case study group and the larger group of

teachers showed that the case study teachers were more definite that their major area of

growth was in developing skills to successfully implement a telecollaborative project.

The large group of teachers was mixed among their areas of growth and was not

definitive about what they had gained.

Teacher Recommendations for Improving the Process

Research Question 1C. What are the suggestions of teachers for changes that could be

made to telecollaborative project experiences to improve their future participation?

Case study group. The small case study group of teachers did not view their

experience in a negative way and only one teacher offered a major suggestion for

improving the process. They did offer that they were reviewing their experience and

believed that over time they would be able to identify some teacher actions they could

implement next time that would make the experience better for their students. Since three

teachers from North America, one teacher from Slovenia, and another from Morocco

were new to the process, they expressed that they continually saw themselves as not

224


knowing what would happen next. Furthermore they were not sure how the project would

progress and how it would finish at the end. They acknowledged that there was ample

printed guidance and written instruction provided throughout the process, but the

experience was so new to them, they could not necessarily transform the written guidance

into actions. The participants generally agreed that they had to experience an entire

session of Learning Circles first to actually understand the process. By the end, they

believed they would be able to go back over the process and rethink their actions and

instructions. The teacher from Slovenia expressed, more than any other member of the

group, that she found the project to be very challenging. Her major difficulty was that it

took much more time than she expected. She believed that a combination of local

technical problems, major time commitments for other school projects, and the language

needs of her students created a situation that did not allow her to devote as much time to

the project as she believed she needed to feel comfortable and be successful. She did not

offer any suggestions on how she could have improved her situation.

The one specific suggestion offered by a teacher in the case study group was that

she wished there were more opportunities to have real-time Web-based activities and

discussions between the classrooms in the Circle. Her students did have the opportunity

participate in a real-time Web-based session using the conferencing tool Elluminate with

another class in their Circle, and she found that this really excited and engaged her

students. She believed it would be a positive addition to the Circle process, but the lack of

such an experience would not stop her from participating in the future.

Large group. The large group of teachers offered more suggestions on how to

improve the process so that they could be more successful in their future participation.

225


There were a few teachers who wanted to change the basic structure or modify some of

the phases. One teacher remarked that the structure was always the same and that varying

the structure might make the project more interesting for regular participants. Another

teacher thought that the facilitator for each Circle group should be more assertive in

defining the project for each group. She was looking for a template that each participant

could fill in to describe his/her participation. She felt there was too much ambiguity and

looseness in the Project Idea phase. Concern for how projects were developed was a

theme addressed by a few other teachers. There definitely appeared to be a problem with

classrooms developing Project Ideas during this session of Learning Circles. The two

Computer Chronicles groups became inactive during this time and in total at least16

classrooms appeared to drop out during the end of the Project Idea and beginning of the

Exchange of Student Work phases.

Real-time communication and Web 2.0 tools. Another popular theme for ideas on

how to improve the process was that teachers were looking for more real-time

communication possibilities between classrooms. Teachers did acknowledge that the

logistics of coordinating schedules between time zones would be very challenging.

Nonetheless, they wanted the opportunities for students to have more direct contact with

each other. One teacher remarked that students work on each other’s projects, but they do

not really get to know more about each other except through the Class Surveys. Another

could not understand why there was not more dialogue with other students from other

schools online. Teachers were also looking for protected alternative online discussion

options such as Wikis, blogs, or Skype sessions. Teachers expressed that they were

226


regularly using Web 2.0 tools in their classrooms and they questioned why these were not

part of the Learning Circles process.

Specific concerns. There were other specific concerns expressed by individual

teachers. One teacher believed that the age differences allowed for high school groups

(14 – 18 years of age) was too great and that Circles should be divided every two years of

age. Another teacher wanted each Circle facilitator to exert more leadership over every

phase of the project and to have a greater presence. Inconsistent and lack of participation

by other Circle members was another theme put forth by teachers frustrated with the

actions of their Circle partners. One teacher pondered, “I could not understand why my

other fellow teachers are not sending messages.” Another expressed her frustration by

writing to the Learning Circles Coordinator, “Can you make the other schools respond to

us?”

Some teachers focused on the difficulties experienced by students who were

speaking English as a second language. This represented almost 75% of the group. One

teacher thought that the Exchange of Cultural Information and project creation were

biased more towards Western cultures and should be modified to make them more

applicable to cultures throughout the rest of the world. He did not specify how this should

look, but he clearly believed that his students could not relate to some of the items on the

surveys.

Teachers. There was a group of teachers who were looking for activities to bring

the teachers together or some additional training. One teacher remarked that when she

compared this experience with previous experiences she saw a direct correlation between

the amount of time the teachers took to learn about each other and the success of the

227


group. She believed that when the teachers took the time to learn about each other on a

personal level they invested more effort into the project and consequently the students

became more invested and cohesive. Other members simply wanted to have more contact

time with the other teachers in the group to learn and exchange ideas. One participant

suggested a teacher's club to share ideas on how to work not only on their own projects

but also with projects from different countries. Another participant strongly believed that

teachers should be provided with some techniques and instruction to provide skills for

communicating better with each other.

Time. One theme that was expressed by a few teachers concerned the amount of

time provided to complete the project. One teacher found that some projects take longer

than others and that the length of Learning Circles should be adjusted depending on the

project. Related to this, other teachers found that there should be some better

coordination of schedules so that various phases of the project did not conflict with local

commitments and concerns. Another teacher was very concerned with the fact that it was

difficult to get the collaboration in projects going. He believed that collaboration

involved discussing a common project with the same parameters, and he felt that the

projects were more like parallel play than collaboration. He thought that the Project Ideas

were similar, but not common, and he had hoped to pursue something more common.

In all, there were many valid suggestions provided by both the case study group

and the larger group of participants. In general they spoke to the difficulties that the

participants found with the telecollaborative process and their desire to improve

communication between students and teachers. Especially promising were those

228


suggestions that were looking forward to incorporating new technologies into the process

in order to provide students and teachers with more options for collaboration.

Experiences That Affect Expectations and Participation

Research Question 2. To what degree do teachers’ level of technology integration, use of

project-based learning methods, and collaboration, as well as the obstacles and enablers

they work with affect their expectations and participation in a telecollaborative project?

The case study group was studied closely to evaluate the effect of teachers’ level

of technology integration, use of project-based learning methods, collaboration,

obstacles, and enablers. They did provide insight through their interviews and actions into

the factors that affect the expectations and participation of participants. It was more

difficult to evaluate the large group since their individual actions were not analyzed.

Their progress reports and comments did provide some insight into how these areas

affected their expectations and participation. Both groups are presented below by topic.

Technology integration. The three teachers in the case study group with the most

experience rated themselves as having reached the Appropriation stage of technology

integration. Two of those teachers were experienced participants in Learning Circles.

Two teachers rated themselves at the Adaptation phase, one at the Adoption phase, and

one teacher at the Entry phase. For the most part, the roles they fulfilled in the Circle

matched their level of experience. The two experienced teachers clearly took the lead and

provided direction and structure to the group. Their expectations indicated that they

foresaw there would be ups and downs within the group, but the end result and the total

experience would be worth the time and effort invested.

229


The experienced teachers helped to keep the Circle moving forward, but also may

have prevented some of the other members from being more innovative. As an example,

it was unusual that all the participants chose to Web publish their projects. Most likely

this was due to the fact that the two experienced members announced early that they were

Web publishing the student work that was sent for their projects. The other participants

appeared to follow their lead and did not explore other ways to publish projects. The less

experienced participants acknowledged that one of their major expectations was to learn

telecollaboration with the hope of evaluating whether or not it would be a beneficial

practice to incorporate into their instructional practice. The teachers in the Entry,

Adoption, and Adaptation phase rarely were the first to post their messages and often

appeared to hold back in order to see what the experienced teachers would do first. It

appeared that the less experienced teachers were comfortable using technology with their

students and viewed their participation in Learning Circles as a way to incorporate

telecollaboration into their current instructional practice. It did not appear however that

they had a larger picture of how they were incorporating technology, but rather Learning

Circles seemed to be an add-on activity to the regular curriculum.

The large group of participants also rated their level of technology integration. Of

the 57 participants who responded to the Pre-Survey, 19 identified themselves at the

Appropriation level (33%). Of the remaining participants, there were 11 participants

(19.3%) each in the Entry, Adoption, and Adaptation levels, and 5 (8.8%) in the

Innovation level. The participants as a group were new to telecollaboration and this

showed in their responses on what they were expecting from their participation for their

students and themselves. For many of the participants their primary expectation was to

230


learn how to be successful with implementing a telecollaborative project. The finished

projects and general flow of the project did not show many standout participants, and this

was not a session that featured innovation. Fifteen of the participants expressed a great

deal of optimism in their Pre-Survey that they and their students were taking a step

forward and becoming involved in an exchange that would be meaningful. One teacher

predicted, “I believe we will have motivated and productive work during this session.”

Another optimistically expressed, “Let us bring the world together through these

projects.” Even though there was great optimism in the group, the large number of Entry,

Adoption, and Adaptation level participants did mean that most of the participants were

following the lead of the few experienced members. Previous research on when teachers

begin to use telecollaboration seems to indicate that teachers often incorporate it into

their instruction in their early phases of technology adoption (Harris, 1995, 2001; Moyer,

Packenham, & Lynch, 2005). Consistent with this, the level of technology integration of

the teachers did appear to affect their expectations and participation at each phase of the

project.

Project-based learning. Evaluating the teacher’s use of project-based learning

with the case study group was more difficult since there were some discrepancies in the

ratings the teachers gave to their use. Teacher A, who was an advocate and self-professed

user of project-based learning, scored well below the average. She did score highly in

some crucial areas, and the work provided by her students did seem to indicate that she

had a definite structure and plan for her students participation in Learning Circles. The

scores of the other teachers appeared to be commensurate with their participation and

level of technology integration. Teacher B clearly aligned his expectations with the

231


process and focused on the exchange and experience his students would receive. He was

a self-professed proponent of problem-based learning and the structure and organization

of his students seemed to indicate that their growth was more related to the experience of

communicating and developing projects rather than the actual finished project. His

communication pattern was strong through the entire process but faded through the final

publishing phase.

The other participants scored lower ratings on their use of project-based learning

and did not appear to have a plan for organizing their students or an organizational

process in which they were planning for learning to occur. For them, Learning Circles

happened one step at a time, and they admittedly did not know where each step was

headed until they experienced it. Their organization of students was based on necessity

and the tasks that each phase of Learning Circles dictated. Their ratings and their

testimonies did indicate that they had some knowledge of how to organize students for

project work, but they did not indicate a well thought out plan that would indicate the use

of project-based learning or problem-based learning.

The large group members also completed the Project-based Learning Profile.

Their rating on the Project-based Learning Profile and their years of experience indicated

that this group had knowledge of project-based learning methodologies and some

experience, but they were not strong proponents or regular users. There was not strong

evidence that the participants had given much thought to applying a learning

methodology such as project-based learning to their participation in Learning Circles.

Some teachers did express that they had formed project teams, but the majority of these

teams reacted to Information Exchange requests and did not necessarily plan their

232


participation ahead of time. Furthermore, that low number of finished projects (28)

indicates that the participants did not necessarily place a strong value on the completion

of their project work.

The lack of direction with managing classrooms was a theme picked up by a few

members who were looking for some type of organization structure for their students.

After the Interim Survey I, the category of project management skills was an area that

teachers believed they were strongly developing through their participation. A group of

teachers asked other members for an idea on how to organize their classes and for

structures they could use. It appears that the teachers were aware that they were missing

something, but they were not able to clearly identify it as a project-based learning

structure. By the end of the project, teachers did express that based on the knowledge

they gained through their participation; they would organize their students differently

next time so that they could achieve more participation. Again, teachers were not able to

clearly identify the types of structures they would use nor did they express that they

would seek out other practices rather than their regular classroom practices for

telecollaborative activities. It appeared that they realized they needed some structural

framework for engaging in telecollaborative project work, but they did not have a clear

idea of what they needed nor could they put a name to it.

Suggestions for organizing classroom structures for telecollaborative project work

can be found on the Web and in the literature (Conference Board of Canada, 2001;

Global SchoolNet, 2000; Harris, 1995). It is not clear what specific training and support

the teachers who participated in this session of Learning Circles had before they began

their participation. Even though iEARN does encourage teachers to explore the use of

233


project-based methodologies for instruction, there is no way of knowing exactly what

type of training the teachers had prior to their participation in Learning Circles. The

teachers did indicate on the Pre-Survey that they had an average 4.7 years of experience

using project-based teaching methodologies such as project-based learning or project-

based approaches to classroom management. Since most of the teachers were not new to

the methodology there should have been some strong evidence they were using project-

based learning. It is very possible that many teachers did not give any conscious thought

to the methodologies they were using or did not see how project-based learning could be

used to mange their students during their participation in Learning Circles. Even though

the use of project-based learning was presented during Weekly Update messages sent by

the Learning Circles Coordinator, there was no formal training or support for its use.

These finding appear to concur with Harris’s (2000) findings that teacher’s often

experience difficulty with telecollaborative projects because they often approach the

process with limited professional training in the area of telecollaboration. This often leads

to inadequate project development and a breaking down of the exchange process.

Collaboration. The case study group struggled with how to incorporate

collaboration. Apparently collaboration was not a strong expectation and it did not

manifest itself strongly through the various phases of Learning Circles. From the

beginning the case study participants expressed frustration on how to get each other more

involved in projects. Teacher E admitted that she misinterpreted the Project Idea phase

and instructed her students to develop individual projects that did not make use of

collaborative elements. Other teachers in the group knew this and still attempted to

contribute to the individual projects of Teachers E’s students. Teacher D expressed that

234


she wanted the group facilitator to take a stronger lead in providing a project structure

that would guide the other participants. She was open to being told what her students

should be doing. In general, the teachers of the case study group seemed to be more

interested in preserving the geographical theme of Places and Perspectives rather than

examining their own curriculums to develop project ideas that were more collaborative in

nature. In the end, their projects were variations of Information Exchanges and did not

reach the deeper stages of problem solving and analysis. Even though there was no

requirement that their projects reach deeper levels of analysis, it is likely that if they had

been able to develop and integrate a stronger use of collaboration they would have

achieved more detailed and integrated projects.

For the large group in general this session of Learning Circles was characterized

by a major lack of collaboration or collaborative structures among the members. Project

updates from the surveys indicated that some teachers simply did not understand this and

others did not take advantage of opportunities to develop collaborations. The opportunity

to work together with students from other parts of the world was a major expectation

expressed by the majority of teachers. Yet, when it came time to develop Project Ideas

teachers struggled with how to incorporate collaboration. The final projects completed by

different classrooms reflect very little collaboration between schools. Some teachers were

keenly aware that after the Exchange of Cultural Information phase there did not seem to

be opportunities for students to connect with each other. There was very little exchange

between students during the Exchange of Student Information phase. Clearly

collaboration was missing and it was a major area identified by teachers that did not meet

their expectations.

235


Obstacles. A few teachers did express that they experienced obstacles that

affected their expectations and participation. Teacher G definitely adjusted her

expectations based on technical and time commitment issues. Teacher C changed her

participation based on outside obstacles that cut her participation short. Teacher E

changed how her students participated based on her interpretation of her students’ needs

rather than the goals of the project and the needs of the other participants. In general, the

obstacles did have an effect on the participation level and completeness of the projects,

but they did not prevent the group from completing their primary goals and participating

in the Circle process.

There were some teachers in the large group who definitely experienced obstacles

to their participation. Teachers frequently referred to experiencing technical problems,

but often they did not specify what those problems were. Some referred to lack of access

to computers and problems with equipment, but they were not specific on how severe the

obstacle was nor did they indicate the amount of time they did not have access to

technology. One participant from a Middle Eastern country was forced to drop out

because his/her schoolhead did not understand the project and was worried about his/her

class discussing ideas with students from other parts of the world. Another teacher from

an African country found that he/she was having problems consistently communicating

because of power outages and frequent Internet cuts. The biggest obstacle teachers faced

was lack of time. This often appears as a major obstacle with telecollaborative project

work and ICT work in general (BECTA, 2004a; Harris, 2000). A good number of

teachers had underestimated the amount of time it took to complete their telecollaborative

projects. One teacher remarked, “I am stressed, perhaps I have chosen too difficult topic

236


for my students' skills. We feel a lack of time, and I wish we could have more time to

really develop relationship and then finish the projects. The work could be better done

then.”

Another obstacle that was on the minds of many teachers was an uneven level of

participation among members throughout the project. Teachers questioned why some

participants were not as active and did not seem to be as dedicated to the project as they

were. Teachers definitely expressed that they wanted more student-to-student contacts

and interaction, yet at the same time teachers expressed that they could not find the time

to post basic student work and abide by the timelines of the project. Some teachers

described their participation as poor and they expressed that they thought they could do

better. In one sense, teachers expressed the need for more student communication as

being one of their major reasons for changing expectations, but almost always it was

expressed as a problem caused by someone else. Teachers rarely felt that they weren’t

communicating enough. It was usually someone else who was not communicating as

much as they should have been.

Enablers. Teachers in the case study group spoke highly of the support and

enablement that the Learning Circles process provided. They were pleased with the work

of the group facilitator and they appreciated the support, information, updates, and

direction they received from the Project Coordinator. They had a high expectation that

there would be enablers to guide them through the project and they seemed pleased that

they were there. One area of frustration expressed by Teacher G was that sometimes her

difficulties and challenges were larger than the help the enablement could provide.

237


Teachers in the large group found many enablers during the process that helped

them to achieve a level of success. Research on the use of enablers in ICT use has shown

that they can play a critical role in helping teachers to achieve success (BECTA, 2004b;

Resta, 2002). A few teachers expressed that the structure of the project helped to hold

everything together. They liked the planned activities such as the Class Surveys and they

asked for more. They liked having a facilitator for each group and even asked that the

facilitators have more control and be able to apply decision-making leadership to the

group. In fact, they requested more enabling structures to create more student

conversation and dialogue.

Influences on Future Participation

Research Question 3. What are the experiences of teachers as they use telecollaborative

project work in a K-12 school setting that influence their future participation?

Both the small case study group of teachers and the larger group of teachers were

unanimous in their decision that they would participate again in Learning Circles in the

future. The case study group seemed less deterred by their obstacles and lack of

completeness. The group continued to move forward even when a few members were

quiet for an extended period of time or had stopped their participation. They were

understanding, supportive, and encouraged those who were having difficulty. By the end

of the project, everyone had met some of their expectations, and this was enough to view

Learning Circles as a project they would choose again in the future. In fact, five of the

seven participants signed up again for the next session of Learning Circles that began at

the end January 2009.

238


In general, the appeal for the case study group was the opportunity to be involved

with teachers and students from other cultures. Every teacher in the group expressed this

sentiment. Teachers believed that both they and their students were enriched and

broadened in some way by their experience. They mentioned other reasons why they

would choose to participate again in the future. Two teachers believed that the project

work was meaningful to their students because other students read their work, and it was

published on the Internet. Two other teachers saw their students motivated to create and

write more than they normally would because of their excitement in participating in

Learning Circles. Another teacher saw the project as a new alternative for approaching

curriculum themes.

The larger group of participants was equally excited about the possibility of

participating in the future and they expressed their reasons. In general, their number one

reason for seeking future participation was also the opportunity to be involved with

teachers and students from other cultures. Teachers also found that students were excited

to share their work online with the other students worldwide for their first time. One

teacher summed up her experience by simply writing, “It's fun, it's interesting, it is very

motivational and it gives students a sense of doing something that really matters.”

Another reason that motivated them was the opportunity to use ICT for

communicating with other teachers and students in some meaningful way. Teachers were

especially pleased that their students had the opportunity to practice language skills in a

real context with real people. They also believed that the projects themselves had merit

and were evidence that students had grown through the experience. After evaluating their

239


experience, three teachers expressed that they wanted to try it again simply because they

wanted to do a better job next time.

Implications for Practice

Learning Circles is just one of many telecollaborative projects that allow teachers

and students to connect with other classrooms and work together collaboratively on

project work. The majority of teachers who sought participation in the September 2008 to

January 2009 session of Learning Circles did so because they were expecting a cultural

experience for their students whereby they would have some contact and interaction with

other students from different parts of the world. These same teachers overwhelming

confirmed that their students did experience this and that they would participate again

because their students gained a greater awareness of other cultures from their experience.

Based on these findings and all that happened in between, what can others learn from this

experience and what implications does this have for telecollaborative project work in

general?

There have been criticisms leveled at telecollaborative project work that usually

focus on one of three areas: the unique attributes of telecollaboration, low usage, and the

apparent silence in the literature regarding its practice (Becker, 1998; Cuban, 2001;

Wells, 2006). The participants of this session of Learning Circles expressed that their

number one expectation for joining the project was so their students could experience

students from other cultures. They largely agreed that their students did realize their

expectation and one of their primary desires was that students have even more exposure

to other students. They were looking for an experience that they did not believe they

could get anywhere else and by and large they were pleased with the results and

240


unanimously agreed that they would participate in a future session. The implication is

that telecollaboration does present teachers with unique opportunities for cross cultural

communication that they cannot easily replicate by other means.

The second criticism is focused on the low usage among educators of

telecollaborative programs and teaching structures (Becker, 1998; Fabos & Young,

1999). This research followed a group of 57 educators who sought participation in a

telecollaborative project. By the end of the project 39 teachers continued to share their

stories and experience and 28 classrooms actually completed the project to the end and

published a final project. The process was challenging and over half of the teachers were

not able to fully complete the process. The low usage among educators may very well be

due to the fact that their expectations do not fully take into account the commitment and

effort needed to fully participate in a telecollaborative experience. This was evidenced

during this session of Learning Circles. Teachers who had less than one year or no

experience with telecollaborative project work led 21 (72.4%) of the 29 classrooms that

did not publish a project. On the other hand, teachers with one or more years of

experience with telecollaborative project work led 18 (64.3%) of the 28 classrooms that

did publish a project. It appears that as teachers and students participate in multiple

projects, they become more realistic about the commitment needed to fully complete a

project and they achieve more consistent success. One participant in the study seemed to

address this situation by stating, “These are valuable projects regardless of the extent to

which they are successful or meet expectations. Teachers can only improve their

participation the more they are involved from year to year.”

241


The silence in the literature may be a result of low usage and the difficulties in

researching the experiences of teachers and students who participate in telecollaborative

projects (Wells, 2006). Telecollaborative project work has its beginnings in the late 1980s

and received a good deal of research, endorsement, and encouragement through the early

and mid 1990s. Since that time, its popularity seems to have waned (Harris, 2002), and

the research regarding its use has almost disappeared. Why the lack of enthusiasm for a

process that apparently does deliver on most of its promises? The reasons for this are

complicated and may be based in some of the following reasons.

The experience of the teachers who participated in Learning Circles showed that

even though there is much talk about the need for children to experience and understand

cultural differences as part of their educational experience, it is difficult to accomplish

and is not as prevalent as it should be (Fabos & Young, 1999). Many of the teachers at

the beginning of the project expressed that they were looking for a cultural exchange

experience for their students that they could give from the confines of their classroom and

through the use of ICT. They also expressed that they knew of few programs other than

Learning Circles whereby they could do this. There are other projects and programs such

as those offered by the International Education and Resource Network (iEARN), Global

SchoolNet, Schools Online, Oracle Education Foundation’s Think.com, International E-

Mail Classroom Connections (IECC), ePals, and KidLink, but most do not feature a

strong participation structure and focus on completing project work.

Connecting teachers to resources is important. Most teachers who became

involved in Learning Circles did so because they heard about it from another teacher, saw

it presented at a workshop, or found it while researching on the Internet for online

242


computer projects. There are many examples of telecollaborative project work on the

Internet, but fewer and fewer organizations that support the practice (Berenfeld, 1996b).

Also, some of these organizations charge a fee that often proves to be an obstacle for

participation in North America and an eliminating factor for most schools throughout the

rest of the world. In order for telecollaborative project work to continue and flourish there

will have to be support organizations that support the practice at an affordable cost for

teachers and schools.

Even though telecollaboration has been around for over thirty years, it is still a

new practice to many teachers and usually appears to be something only a few

technology-oriented teachers practice. It may involve too much of a commitment of time

and reorganization of how teachers provide instruction (Harris, 2000). Teachers also have

to see its value in the educational process. One teacher commented that, “Online project

work itself is hard work.” Telecollaboration takes a commitment of time and effort on the

part of the teacher. One of the major concerns of teachers who participated in Learning

Circles was that it required a greater commitment of time than was anticipated. The issue

of time and commitment was on the minds of many teachers. One teacher wrote, “I am of

the view that a lot of teachers may be willing to integrate technology into the classroom

but the nature of time-tables in the schools and the facilities as well as the focus of

educational institutions make things sometimes difficult.” Another teacher declared, “In

our country telecollaborative work is still something what only ‘enthusiastic’ teachers do.

Their work is not valued and it is not enough supported by government. Until

participation in international projects and project-based learning stops becoming a matter

of state politics, the development won't be fast enough.”

243


Many schools support the increasing use of technology in classrooms. As this

continues, the communication potential of ICT needs to be promoted as an integral part

of any ICT program.

Even though there is an increase in the use of technology in schools it still has not

fully impacted curriculum or how teachers provide instruction (BECTA, 2004a).

Teachers struggled during Learning Circles to fit the project into their current style of

teaching. They liked what their students were achieving, but felt that they were not fully

able to implement telecollaborative project work in the way they wanted to. They were

aware of the fact that they needed new or different classroom structures, but they couldn’t

identify those structures.

Telecollaboration for most teachers continues to be an add-on activity. Teachers

continue to find it difficult to fit into the curriculum. Many of the teachers of Learning

Circles used the project as an enrichment activity, extra activity club, or specialized small

group project. It was not part of the regular classroom experience. This could be one of

the reasons teachers consistently mentioned that they were having difficulty finding time

to get their students together to complete all the activities. In order to promote greater use

of telecollaborative project work there will need to be enabling structures that help

teachers to make the connection between inquiry-based methods of instruction and the

use of ICT. Telecollaboration should be promoted as an activity to help teachers

accomplish multiple skills endeavors as teachers face changing curriculums that move

away from subject based to skills based approaches.

Students commonly communicate with others throughout the world by using

technologies to social network. Teachers may be misunderstanding the goals of

244


telecollaborative work and may be valuing the social and cultural value more than the

value of the collaborative project work (Belz, 2002). Originally teachers identified that

their major expectation for Learning Circles was to provide students with a cultural

exchange experience. In fact, very few teachers expressed that they were excited about

their students working on projects. As Learning Circles progressed the excitement among

teachers was incredibly high after the Exchange of Cultural Information, but dropped

drastically when it came time to develop Project Ideas and exchange student work. For

many teachers the cultural exchange was what they were seeking and they apparently did

not see how students could exchange cultural information through project work. In fact,

this group struggled to include collaborative elements in their projects. Telecollaborative

project work research needs to show the connection between students exchanging cultural

information and working together collaboratively in project work. Each element has

value in itself, but together they have an even greater potential to form a unique learning

experience for students that surpasses the total of each element.

There is clearly a mismatch between levels of technology use and development

throughout the world. This accounts for uneven participation and commitment in

telecollaborative project work and is a source of frustration for participants (Harris,

2000). Schools in developed countries want to communicate with schools in less

developed areas of the world. Schools in less developed areas of the world provide a high

level of excitement and anticipation in telecollaborative project groupings. Unfortunately,

the inability to communicate on a regular and consistent basis also continues to be a

source of frustration for both parties. Schools in Africa and Asia routinely speak of the

high cost of Internet access and the unreliability of electricity. Solutions to this will not

245


be easy, but as more areas of the world experience a stronger development of ICT

infrastructure it is hoped that more schools will be available for participation. For now

schools that want to participate with less developed areas of the world or schools with

less advanced access to ICT will have to adopt multiple collaboration models that can

accommodate different levels of access and abilities to participate.

Participants in telecollaborative work also have different definitions of

commitment. Somehow being connected online and the anonymity of Internet allow

classrooms to easily drop their commitment or stop communicating without any sense of

improper behavior (Ware, 2003). At the beginning this session of Learning Circles each

school was sent a participation letter that reviewed their expectations for participation.

Teachers were required to confirm their commitment to participate before their

registration was finalized. Yet, this session of Learning Circles saw a constant decrease in

active participants through each phase of the process. In almost every situation there was

no communication by the school that ceased participation explaining their reason for

dropping out. The few schools that did communicate expressed local problems or

technical issues. Since a greater commitment of time and resources than expected was

listed by teachers as one of the reasons that they changed their expectations, it is likely

that this may have been the major reason teachers dropped out. It was impossible to know

since the teachers who dropped out did not respond to requests to explain their reasons

for ceasing their participation.

Another problem that occurred was that some classrooms stopped communicating

for long periods of time with little or no explanation. Even though they were encouraged

to at least send a progress update message each week, they chose not to communicate or

246


provide the other members with any information of what they were doing or what was

going on. Apparently something about the anonymity of the Internet, the distances

between schools, the expectations of different cultures, and the lack of consequences

makes this an acceptable action in the minds of a number of participants. As

telecollaborative project work grows a greater emphasis will need to be placed on basics

of online etiquette and behavior. Teachers behave differently online than they would if

they were working face-to-face with participants. In order for telecollaborative project

work to be effective, teachers need to be more connected and committed to each other. It

is possible that some form of social or professional networking could promote this.

Limitations of the Study

This study was designed to examine the expectations and experience of a group of

teachers who sought participation in a telecollaborative project for their students. A

specific project, Learning Circles, was chosen to investigate because of the access the

investigator had to the participants and the process. The Learning Circles project was

limited to iEARN members who chose to participate in the September 2008 to January

2009 session. Also, Learning Circles is just one of many telecollaborative projects going

on in the world today. It is likely that other expectations and evaluation of expectations

may have emerged if other teachers associated with telecollaborative project work were

given a voice to express their experience.

Of the 61 participants who signed up for this session of Learning Circles, 57

agreed to participate. For the case study group I used a purposeful sample of teachers

who volunteered their participation. It is likely that this decreased the generalizability of

the findings to all areas of telecollaborative project work.

247


English was a secondary language for many of the participants. It is possible the

participants were not fully able to express every thought and feeling due to limitations

they felt with their ability to use the English language (Schmidt, Lyytinen, Keil, & Cule,

2001). Furthermore, researcher bias may have existed due to the many years of

experience and closeness I have to the use of telecollaborative project work (Patton,

2002).

In order to overcome these limitations and strengthen the generalizability of the

study, I used various strategies. I sought triangulation of data collection through the

collection of multiple data sources. This was also pursued for interpretation. Furthermore,

in order to confirm the experience of the case study participants I used member checking

for their interviews and the weekly synopsis of their experience. I frequently used the

actual written and spoken words of the participants to allow them to describe and explain

their experience.

Suggestions for Further Research

This study sought to examine the experiences of teachers using telecollaborative

project work to determine if they realized the expectations they developed before they

began participating in a project. A major component of this study was the examination of

what actually happened to a group of teachers during a telecollaborative project. Since

the project went through many phases and elicited the comments of many of the

participants, many issues and other areas of interest were raised that were not necessarily

a part of this study. Furthermore, the study itself was meant to be a beginning attempt to

understand the world of a group of teachers who participated in telecollaborative project

work in order to understand why they engaged their students in this experience and what

248


they realized through their participation. The results of the study raise questions on how

telecollaborative project work could be improved for both teachers and students. This

provides opportunities for further research.

A group of teachers raised the possibility that teacher participation and

commitment could be improved through the use of teacher training in telecollaboration,

teacher social networking, or teacher instruction on the use of project-based learning and

problem-based learning methodologies. Currently Learning Circles focuses on student

activity and does not dedicate much time to building teacher communication. The idea

that teacher education programs could be built into telecollaborative experiences in order

to improve teacher and classroom participation raises possibilities for research. Currently

organizations such as iEARN provide Professional Development courses that provide

instruction to teachers on how to implement telecollaborative projects. Other student

exchange Websites such as ePals provide online discussion areas where teachers can

exchange ideas and ask questions of each other. Global School Network and other

support organizations provide lists of instructions to help teachers, but none of these sites

actually features the support as a component of each project. Others have provided

models and suggestions for preparing teachers to facilitate telecollaborative projects

(Buss, 2001; Harris, 1998; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006), but the idea of making this support

an actual component of the project may be a new concept in how to promote greater

success in telecollaboration. Research into this area could help to develop new models for


This study introduced a new instrument to rate teachers on their use of project-

based learning. The results of its use suggest that it did give an accurate indication of the

249


use of some teachers, but not all. Teachers of students who exercise more teacher control

over their classrooms due to the age of students and other circumstances did not achieve

ratings that matched their descriptions of their practice. Observations of teacher practice

and behavior would have helped to assess the value of the instrument and its accuracy.

Clearly more research needs to be completed to evaluate and refine the instrument. It

would be useful to know if teachers who achieved a higher rating on the Project-based

Learning Profile actually were stronger users of project-based learning than teachers who

rated themselves lower. The area of assessing a teacher’s use of methodologies is

important because a number of teachers expressed that their current classroom structure

did not allow them to achieve the success and effectiveness they were seeking. The

Learning Circles model encourages the use of the project-based learning methodology so

that the project can be student developed and managed. It would be useful to know if

teachers who use project-based learning methodologies experience a higher degree of

success than teachers who do not use project-based learning methodologies.

Almost every teacher encountered some difficulty in his or her Learning Circles

experience. Even though each person had a different story and it seemed as if every

person had a different suggestion, there were some themes that did emerge in ways

teachers believed the process could be improved. Teachers sought enablers and provided

suggestions for enabling structures and practices. The research on enablers to ICT use

(BECTA, 2004b) suggests that there are specific practices that can be used to improve

teacher success with ICT. It would be valuable to know what enablers could be used to

help classrooms to specifically participate in telecollaborative project work. It would also

be valuable to know what enablers could help classrooms overcome those areas that

250


proved to be most challenging to teachers in Learning Circles. Teachers especially found

the development of Project Ideas and the completing final projects and publications to be

challenging areas. An investigation into enabling structures that support these phases of

project work would be valuable to supporting telecollaborative work and developing

models that achieved a higher rate of success.

The emergence of new forms of online collaborative tools was an area of interest

that emerged during this study and has been manifesting itself over previous sessions of

Learning Circles. The development of new Web 2.0 tools such as Wikis, blogs, Skype,

and online collaboration Websites such as Elluminate are changing the ways teachers and

students collaborate with other classrooms. During this session of Learning Circles

teachers used all these forms of collaboration and the consensus was that they wanted

more. Learning Circles has traditionally used email, online forum posting, and document

exchange to facilitate online collaboration. The reason for this is that there is an uneven

level of technology development among the participating schools. During this last session

a school in North America equipped with the latest in educational technology equipment

communicated with a school in Africa where teachers and students were using the

services of an Internet café to type and send their messages. Both schools enjoyed

exchanging information, but they were limited in their ability to use alternative

collaboration tools. As telecollaboration grows in the future, it will be valuable to

investigate and assess to the limitations and potential for these new tools as well as what

can be done to promote a greater evenness in communication and collaboration among

schools in different areas of the world.

251


Lastly, this research indicated that teachers sought to participate in Learning

Circles because they were seeking a telecollaborative project that would provide their

students with an opportunity to experience students from other cultures. The teachers

strongly believed they had achieved their expectations and were unanimous in their

decision that they would participate in the future because their experience provided

enough benefits for their students and themselves. The participants saw the value of the

work, but research indicates that telecollaboration is one of the least used forms of ICT

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2000; Kozma, 2003). What strategies can be

developed to promote the use telecollaborative project work among teachers and students

around the world? In evaluating the meaning of the participation of her students, one

teacher reflected, “People need to interact with one another, one way or the other. This

method enables us to overcome political boundaries, economic constraints, and other

things that separate us. Exchange of cultural information makes us one person, united in

thoughts and finally in action.”

A Final Reflection

I have been involved with Learning Circles and telecollaborative projects every

year since 1989. For most of that time, my involvement was as a teacher who facilitated a

group of students to participate in two projects a year. Eventually I progressed to

becoming a Circle facilitator and three years ago I was offered the opportunity to

coordinate the entire project. Over the years, I have attempted to promote the use of

Learning Circles among teachers because I found that my students really enjoyed their

participation and I saw their growth academically in their language skills and the

motivation it provided for creating projects for real audiences. I always wondered why

252


some teachers thought telecollaborative project work was the greatest educational

opportunity available to students, and other teachers were not motivated to pursue it all.

Over this time period, I have had the opportunity to work with hundreds of teachers, but I

never thought it would be possible to find out why they used it and to share what they

gained through their participation.

In the year 2000, I attended my first international conference of teachers who use

telecollaborative project work and I was amazed at the dedication, determination, and

perseverance of the teachers. They were a close community made up of teachers from

multiple social and economic backgrounds representing an incredible diversity of

cultures. At that time, I believed the worldwide educational community could benefit

from hearing their stories. I sought to learn as much about telecollaborative project work

in the literature, but I noticed that each year the literature became increasingly silent on

its use and practice. At the same time, I knew that a significant group of teachers existed

who promoted its practice.

I determined that even though much had been said about telecollaborative project

work through the 1980s and 1990s it would still be necessary to determine why teachers

are using this practice today. I wanted to know today what they were expecting, did they

find what they were looking for, and what happened along the way. Through this research

I have been able to answer a few basic questions and to gain some insight into the

thoughts and practice of fellow teachers. I have also learned that there is much more to

know and many depths to this practice that need to be further researched and developed.

This work is only the beginning of a much larger story.

253


Through this research I have been motivated by the dedication and determination

of teachers who work in much more challenging educational situations than I have ever

experienced. It is their work that keeps this practice moving forward and their stories that

will form the pathway for future educators to establish telecollaborative as a standard

practice for all classrooms throughout the world. As one participant wrote,

“Telecollaborative projects makes the world a global village and enables my students to

work with others. It is the future of work for schools and individuals.”

254


REFERENCES

Abbott, M. L., & Fouts, J. T. (2003). Constructivist teaching and student achievement:

The results of a school-level classroom observation study in Washington.

Lynnwood, WA: Washington School Research Center, Seattle Pacific University.

Retrieved June 8, 2007, from

http://www.spu.edu/orgs/research/currentresearch.html.

Anderson, R.E. (2002). Guest editorial: International studies of innovative uses of ICT in

schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 381-386.

Andres, Y. M. (1995). Collaboration in the classroom and over the Internet. Electronic

Learning. Retrieved on November 14, 2006, at

http://www.globalschoolnet.org/GSH/teach/articles/collaboration.html.

Andres, Y. M. (2002, February). Art of collaboration: Awesome tools and proven

strategies. Paper presented at TechEd, Long Beach, CA. Retrieved on June 10,

2007, at http://techedevents.org/LongBeach/Proceedings/RT%20804.pdf.

Apple Computers. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, &

technology: Apple Classrooms Of Tomorrow (ACOT)’s ten year report.

Cupertino, CA: Apple Computers. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from

http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/library.html.

Asan, A., & Haliloglu, Z. (2005). Implementing project based learning in computer

classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 1-19.

Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G. & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge

construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 7(3), 1-23.

255


Bamburg, J. (1994). Raising expectations to improve student learning. Oak Brook, Il:

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 378290).

Barab, S., King, R., & Gray, J. (Eds.). (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the

service of learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Basharina, O. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in

international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103.

Basharina, O., Guardado, M., & Morgan, T. (2008). Negotiating differences: Instructors'

reflections on challenges in international telecollaboration. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 65(2), 275-305.

Becker, H. J. (1998). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher

directed student use. University of California, Irvine: Center for Research on

Information Technology and Organization. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from

http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm.

Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. (1999, September). Teacher professionalism and the emergence

of constructivist-compatible pedagogies. Teaching, Learning, and Computing:

1998 National Survey, Special Report. Center for Research on Information

Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.

Becker, H. J., Wong. Y. T., & Ravitz, J. L. (1999, December). Teaching, learning and

computing: 1998 national survey; Computer use and pedagogy in Co-NECT

schools. University of California, Irvine: Center for Research on Information

Technology and Organization.

256

http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm


Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in

network-based language teaching. ReCALL 13(2), 213-231.

Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study.

Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81.

Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural

competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-117.

Berenfeld, B. (1996a). Linking students to the infosphere. T.H.E. Journal, 23(9), 76.

Berenfeld, B. (1996b, June). Telecommunications in our classroom: Boondoggle or a

powerful teaching tool? In Proceedings of the INET '96 Conference:

Transforming Our Society Now, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved January 27, 2007,

from http://www.isoc.org/isoc/whatis/conferences/inet/96/proceedings/c1/

c1_2.htm.

Bernard, R. M., Rubacava, B. R., & St-Pierre, D. (2000). Collaborative online distance

learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260-

277.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.

(1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the

learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.

Brattesani, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., and Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student perceptions of

differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects.

Journal of Educational Psychology 76(2), 236-247.

257


British Educational and Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2002).

ImpaCT2: The impact of information and communications technology on pupil

learning and attainment. Coventry, England: BECTA ICT Research.

British Educational and Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2004a). A

review of the research literature on the barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers.

Coventry, England: BECTA ICT Research.

British Educational and Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2004b)

Enabling teachers to make successful use of ICT. BECTA ICT Research,

Coventry, England.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for

constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia USA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631-661.

Brown, K. (2000). Global learning networks: Heartbeats on the Internet. In J. Tinajero &

R. DeVillar (Eds.), The power of two languages 2000: Effective dual-language

use across the curriculum (pp. 309-319). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual

knowledge acquisition. In L. R. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction.

Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

258


Bryson, E. (1994). Will a project approach to learning provide children opportunities to

do purposeful reading and writing, as well as provide opportunities for authentic

learning in other curriculum areas? Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED392513)

Burke, M. A., Beach, B. W., & Isman, A. (1997, August). Learning community link:

Enhancing learning using telecommunication technologies. T.H.E. Journal

Online. Retrieved on June 10, 2007, at http://www.thejournal.com/articles/13494.

Buss, A. R. (2001). A Delphi study of educational telecollaborative projects: Identifying

critical elements and obstacles. Journal of Educational Computing Research,

24(3), 235-248.

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C. and Gronhaug, K., (2001), Qualitative marketing

research. London: Sage.

Chard, S. C. (1992). The project approach: A practical guide for teachers. Edmonton,

Alberta: University of Alberta Printing Services.

Changwatchai, J. (2005, August). Student perceptions of a collaborative online learning

environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K., & Davis, T. (1998, February). Cultural connections:

Promoting self-esteem, achievement, and multicultural understanding through

distance learning. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development

Presentations at the National Convention of the Association for Educational

Communications and Technology, St. Louis, Missouri.

Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis and evidence. Greenwich,

CT: Information Age.

259


Clouse, R. W., & Nelson, H. E. (2000). School reform, constructed learning, and

educational technology. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(4), 289-

303.

Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students' writing.

American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159.

Conference Board of Canada. (2001). Canada's SchoolNet GrassRoots program: Case

studies. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.

Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. School Improvement Research

Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved on

August 10, 2007, at http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu7.html.

Craig, D., (1997). Telecurricular teaching and learning the impact of World Wide Web

access on the instructional process. Telecommunications in Education, 8(3), 6-8.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975, February). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.

American Psychologist, 30(2), 116-127.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University.

Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural literacy

through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin's.

260


Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

261D261e261n261z261i261n261,261 261N261.261 K261.,261 261&261

261Lincoln261,261 261Y261.261 S261.261 261(261E261d261s261.261)261.

261(2612005)261.261 The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.

T261h261o261u261s261a261n261d261 261O261a261k261s, CA; Sage261.

Dillenbourg, P., & Schneider, D. (1995, February). Collaborative learning and the

Internet. TECFA: A Unit of Educational Technology. Retrieved January 17, 2007,

from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html.

Ding, A. (2009). Tensions and struggles in fostering collaborative teacher autonomy

online. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 65-81.

Donlan, L. (1998). Visions of online projects dance in my head. Multimedia Schools,

5(1). Retrieved July 29, 2007, from

http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan98/story.htm.

Dooling, J. O. (2000). What students want to learn about computers? Educational

Leadership, 58(2), 20-24.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Duch, B. (Ed.). (1995, January). What is problem-based learning? About Teaching: A

Newsletter of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, 47. Retrieved November 11,

2005, from http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95-what.html.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J., (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design

and delivery of instruction, In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research for

261

http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95-what.html


educational communications and technology (pp. 170 - 198). New York: Simon

& Schuster Macmillan.

Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of

educational practice. New York: Macmillan.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic

inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’

beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of

Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72.

Esch, C. (1998). Project-based and problem-based: The same or different? The

Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project, San Mateo County Office of Education.

Retrieved November 11, 2005, from

http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/PBL&PBL.htm.

Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (1999a). A design for comprehensive school

reform. Cambridge, MA: Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound.

Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (1999b). Early indicators from schools

implementing New American Schools Designs. Cambridge, MA: Expeditionary

Learning Outward Bound.

Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric

versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.

Figueroa, E., Sayers, D., & Brown. K. (2001, April/May). Global learning networks:

Creating communities of learners globally and locally. Context: Newcomers in

California’s Classrooms, 21(146), 1-8.

262


Fong, L. K. (2003, December). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of their experience

in using ICT for project-based learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Hong Kong.

Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based

learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195-200.

Gallini, J., & Helman, H. (1993, April). Collaborative learning in virtually expanded

classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

Garcia, S. (2005, April). Learning communities and educational technology: Part II.

Educators' Outlook. Retrieved February 18, 2006, at

http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=159901750.

The George Lucas Educational Foundation. (2005). What is project-based learning?

Retrieved November 11, 2005, from

http://www.edutopia.org/modules/PBL/whatispbl.php.

Gergen, K. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L. P. Steffe & J.

Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education (pp.17-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill

Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Global SchoolNet. (2000). Introduction to networked project-based learning. Retrieved

November 11, 2005, from http://www.gsn.org/web/pbl/whatis.htm.

Global SchoolNet Website. (2007). Retrieved on June 10, 2007, at http://www.gsn.org.

Goldman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

263

http://www.gsn.org/web/pbl/whatis.htm

http://www.edutopia.org/modules/PBL/whatispbl.php


Good, T., & Brophy, J. 1980. Educational psychology: A realistic approach (2nd ed.).

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gragert, E. (2000, September). Expanding international education through the Internet:

No longer limited to the global studies and language curriculum. Washington,

DC: White Paper prepared for the Secretary of Education's Conference on

Technology in Education.

Gragert, E. (2002, July). Learning from the other. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from

http://www.learningchannel.org/article.view.60010/1/.

Grant, M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and

recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal,

5(1). Retrieved November 11, 2005, from

http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/index.html.

Grant, M., & Branch, R. (2005) Project-based learning in a middle school: Tracing

abilities through the artifacts of learning. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education 38(1), 65-98.

Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries,

Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

264


Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-

117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gubacs, K. (2004). Project-based learning: A student-centered approach to integrating

technology into physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical

Education, Recreation and Dance, 75(7), 33-37.

Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project-

based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching,

and technology. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/.

Harriman, S. (2006). Online projects: What’s so remarkable? - Students’ experiences of

an online project in NSW schools. Success for Boys: Boys and ICT Module, ICT

Resource 26. Commonwealth of Australia.

Harris, J. (1995). Organizing and facilitating telecollaborative projects. The Computing

Teacher, 22(5), 66-69.

Harris, J. (1998). Virtual architecture: Designing and directing curriculum-based

telecomputing. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Harris, J. (2000). Taboo topic no longer: Why telecollaborative projects sometimes fail.

Leading and Learning with Technology, 27(5), 58-61.

Harris, J. (2001, May). Teachers as telecollaborative project designers: A curriculum

based approach. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,

1(3). Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/

iss3/seminal/article1.htm.

265


Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore art though, telecollaboration? Learning and Leading with

Technology, 29(6), 55-59.

Harris, J. B., & Figg, C. (2000). Participating from the sidelines, online: Facilitating

telementoring projects. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(4), 227 –

236.

Harrison, C. R. (1999). Spinning a web around forensic science and senior biology.

Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(8), 17-20.

Hartley, J. R., (1999). Effective pedagogies for managing collaborative learning in on-

line learning environments. International Forum of Educational Technology and

Society, 2(2), 12-19.

Healy, J. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children's minds - and

what we can do about it. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Highlen, P. S., & Finley, H. C. (1996). Doing qualitative analysis. In F. T. L. Leong & T.

A. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate

students and research assistants (pp. 177-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hipps, J. A. (1993, April). Trustworthiness and authenticity: Alternate ways to judge

authentic assessments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED376195)

Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education

researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63.

Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning

environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case

266


studies in instructional design (pp. 11-24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational

Technology Publications.

Howard, J. (2002). Technology-enhanced project-based learning in teacher education:

Addressing the goals of transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,

10(3), 343-364.

Hron, A., & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of Web-based collaborative learning:

Factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 70-79.

Hutchings, K., & Standley, M. (2000). Global project based learning with technology.

Eugene, OR: Visions Leadership Series, Visions Technology in Education.

iEARN Website. (2007). Retrieved on June 10, 2007, at http://www.iearn.org.

Inquiry Page Project Group. (2001). Inquiry page: Our definition of inquiry. University

of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from

http://www.inquiry.uiuc.edu/inquiry/definition.php.

Jamaludin, A., & Lang, Q. C. (2006). Using asynchronous online discussions in primary

school project work. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 64-

87.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D.

H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and

technology: A project of the association for educational communications and

technology (pp. 1017-1044). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M.

Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of

instructional theory, Vol. II (pp. 215-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

267

http://www.inquiry.uiuc.edu/inquiry/definition.php


Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging

learners in critical thinking. Techtrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is

there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-

597.

Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging children's minds: The project approach.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Stamford,

CT: Wadsworth. Retrieved on January 27, 2007, from

http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/chapts.htm.

Kenway, J. (1998). Pulp fictions? Education, markets and the Information Superhighway.

In D. Carlson and M. W. Apple (Eds.) Power/Knowledge/Pedagogy: The meaning

of democratic education in unsettling times (pp.61-91). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Kitagawa, K. (2001). Building innovative capacity in the classroom. Ottawa: Conference

Board of Canada. Retrieved on January 28, 2007, from

http://www.schoolnet.ca/grassroots/e/resources/toolkit/Kitagawa/5cboc_ef.pdf.

Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-7.

Kozma, R., & Schank, P. (1998). Connecting with the 21st century: Technology in

support of educational reform. In C. Dede (Ed.), Learning with technology. 1998

ASCD yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416857)

268

http://www.schoolnet.ca/grassroots/e/resources/toolkit/Kitagawa/5cboc_ef.pdf


Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative

practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching

(pp. 83-100). London: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Lang, Q., Peer, J., & Divaharan, S. (2005). Computer mediated communication as a

collaborative tool for facilitating student-centered learning in project-based

classrooms. Educational Technology 45(4), 48-51.

Lankshear, C., & Snyder, I. (2000). Teachers and techno-literacy. Sydney: Allen &

Unwin.

Law, N., Lee, Y., & Chow, A. (2002). Practice characteristics that lead to "21st century

learning outcomes." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 415-426.

Learning Circles Website. (2007). Retrieved on June 10, 2007, at

http://www.iearn.org/circles/.

Leung, W. (2002). Investigating problem-based learning with ICT in elementary school.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong, China.

Levin, B. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates' personal

practical theories (PPTs). Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 55-68.

Levin, J. A., Riel, M., Miyake, N., & Cohen, M. (1987). Education on the electronic

frontier: Teleapprentices in globally distributed educational contexts.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(3), 254-260.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lopez-Ortiz, B., & Lin, L. (2005). What makes an online group project work? Students'

perceptions before and after an online collaborative problem/project-based

269


learning (PBL) experience. International Journal of Instructional Technology and

Distance Learning, 2(2), 47-54.

Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravit, J. (2003) Project based learning handbook: A guide to

standards focused project based learning for middle and high school teachers.

Novato, CA: Buck Institute of Education.

McCormick, N. B., & McCormick, J. W. (1992). Computer friends and foes: Content of

undergraduates’ electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 8(4), 379-405.

McGee, P. A. (1998). Unintentional professional development in curriculum based K-12

telementoring projects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of

Texas, Austin.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role with constructivist classrooms.

Research/Technical Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED383283)

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:

Revised and expanded form case study research in education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating

diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Milne, C. (2005, August). On being authentic: A response to "No thank you, not today":

Supporting ethical and professional relationships in large qualitative studies.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research (On-line Journal), 6(3), Article 38. Retrieved

270


on March 5, 2007, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-

38-e.htm.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification

strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2), Article 2. Retrieved March 5,

2007, from http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/.

Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR:

International Society for Technology in Education.

Moursund, D. (2002). Getting to the second order. Learning & Leading With Technology,

30(1), 7-9, 48-49.

Moursund, D. (2003). Project-based learning using information technology (2nd ed.).

Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Moursund, D. (2005). Introduction to information and communication technology in

education. Retrieved on December 9, 2006, from

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~moursund/Books/ICT/ICTBook.html.

Moursund, D., Bielefeldt, T., & Underwood, S. (1997). Foundations for the road ahead:

Project-based learning and information technologies. Report prepared for the

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education by the International

Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from

http://www.iste.org/research/roadahead/pbl.cfm.

Moursund, D., & Smith, I. (2000). Research on Internet use in education. The Research

and Evaluation Group of the International Society for Technology in Education.

271

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-38-e.htm

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-38-e.htm


Retrieved January 18, 2006, from

http://www.iste.org/research/reports/tlcu/internet.cfm.

Moyer, J., Packenham, P., & Lynch, M. C. (2005). Technology-supported mathematics

environments: Telecollaboration in a secondary statistics classroom. Australian

Mathematics Teacher, 61(4), 28-32.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, April). Teacher use of computers and the

Internet in public schools. U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, NCES Publication No. 2000-090.

Naujokaitis. D. M. (2002). Children's project based learning on the Internet:

Telecommunications, teamwork and the transformation of teaching. Presentation

at the 9th Annual Crimea Conference of Librarians and Educators, Sudak, Ukraine.

Retrieved January 22, 2007, at http:// www.occdsb.on.ca/~sel/3TTTs.pdf.

Newhouse, C. P., Trinidad, S., & Clarkson, B. (2002). Quality pedagogy and effective

learning with information and communication technology (ICT): A review of

literature. Retrieved April 2, 2005, from

http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/cmis/eval/downloads/pd/litreview.pdf.

O’Dowd, R. O. (2003). Understanding the "other side": Intercultural learning in a

Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-

144.

O’Dowd, R. O. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in

telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16(1), 5-20.

272

http://www.iste.org/research/reports/tlcu/internet.cfm


O’Dowd, R. O., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with failed

communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–

642.

O'Neil, H. F., & Perez, R. (Eds.). (2003). Technology applications in education: A

learning view. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: Comparing the two

definitions helps understand the nature of interactive learning. Cooperative

Learning and College Teaching, 8(2), 3-5.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perkins, D. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T.

Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A

conversation (pp. 45-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 7-

11.

Piaget, J. (1954). Construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Pittard, V., Bannister, P., & Dunn, J. (2003). The big pICTure: The impact of ICT on

attainment, motivation and learning. Report from the UK Department for

Education and Skills. Retrieved on June 7, 2007, at

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/ThebigpICTure.pdf.

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997). Report to the

President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United

273


States. Washington, DC: President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and

Technology.

Resta, P. (Ed.). (2002). Information and communication technologies in teacher

education: A planning guide. Paris: UNESCO.

Reyes, R. (1998). Native perspective on the school reform movement: A hot topics paper.

Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Comprehensive

Center Region X. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from

http://www.nwrac.org/pub/hot/native.html.

Richards, C. (2005). The design of effective ICT-supported learning activities:

Exemplary models, changing requirements, and new possibilities. Language

Learning & Technology, 9(1), 60-79.

Riel, M. (1989). Four models of educational telecommunications: Connections to the

future. Education & Computing, 5(3), 261-274.

Riel, M. (1990a). The Computer Chronicles Learning Circle curriculum guides: High

school, middle school and elementary school versions. Bridgewater, NJ: AT&T

Learning Network.

Riel, M. (1990b). Cooperative learning across classrooms. Instructional Science, 19(6),

445-466.

Riel, M. (1990c). Computer-mediated communication: A tool for reconnecting kids with

society. Interactive Learning Environments 1(40), 255-263.

Riel, M. (1992a). Cooperative learning through telecommunications. ACM SIGCUE

Outlook, 21(3), 14 – 17.

274


Riel, M. (1992b). A functional analysis of educational telecomputing: A case study of

Learning Circles. Interactive Learning Environments 2(1), 15-30.

Riel, M. (1993). Global education through Learning Circles. In L. Harasim, (Ed.), Global

networks: Computer and international communication (pp. 221-236). Cambridge:

MIT.

Riel, M. (1995). Cross-classroom collaboration in global learning circles. In S. L. Star

(Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 219-242), Sociological Review Monograph.

Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Riel, M. (1996) Cross-Classroom-Collaboration: Communication and education. In T.

Koschman (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning: Theory and

practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 187-207). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Elbaum.

Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001). Technology’s role in supporting learning communities for

the new millennium. Kappan, 82(7), 518-523.

Riel, M., & Levin, J. (1990). Building electronic communities: Successes and failures in

computer networking. Instructional Science, 19(2), 145-169.

Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An

example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 41(7), 669-692.

Roberts, A. (2004). Analyzing patterns and relationships around a bond of common text:

Purposes, dilemmas, and possibilities of a virtual community. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 1-27.

275


Rogers, A. (1999, February). The origins of a global learning network. Retrieved on

November 19, 2006, from

http://www.globalschoolnet.org/GSH/teach/articles/origins.htm.

Rogers, A., Andres, Y., Jacks, M., & Clauset, T. (1990). Telecommunications in the

classroom: Keys to successful telecomputing. The Computing Teacher, 17(8), 25-

28.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation

and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation

and pupils' intellectual development (expanded ed.). New York: Irvington.

Ross, S. M. et al. (1999). Two- and three-year achievement results on the Tennessee

value-added assessment system for restructuring schools in Memphis. Memphis:

Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.

Ryan, C., & Koschmann, T. (1994). The collaborative learning laboratory: A

technology-enriched environment to support problem-based learning.

Proceedings of the National Educational Computing Conference 1994, Boston,

160-163. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396678)

Ryser, G. R., Beeler, J. E., & McKenzie, C. M. (1995). Effects of a Computer-Supported

Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) on students' self-concept, self-

regulatory behavior, and critical thinking ability. Journal of Educational

Computing Research 13(4), 375-385.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology:

Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College.

276


San Mateo County Office of Education. (1999). The challenge 2000 multimedia project:

7 dimensions checklist. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from

http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/TechHelp/Resource_Lib/7_dimensions_checklist.pdf.

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Schilling, K. M., & Schilling, K., L. (1999). Increasing expectations for student effort.

About Campus, 4(2), 4-10.

Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks:

An international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems,

17(4), 5-36.

Schulz-Zander, R., Buchter, A., & Dalmer, R. (2002). The role of ICT as a promoter of

students’ cooperation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 438-448.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Silva, M., & Breuleux, A. (1994, July). The use of participatory design in the

implementation of internet-based collaborative learning activities in K- 12

classrooms. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for

the 21st Century, 2(3). Georgetown University, Washington, DC: Center for

Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer Center.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Merrill.

Snow, R. E. (1969). Unfinished Pygmalion. Contemporary Psychology, 14(4), 197-200.

277


Solomon, G. (2003, January). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and

Learning, 23(6), 20-30.

Spaulding, C., & Lake, D. (1991, April). Interactive effects of computer network and

student characteristics on students’ writing and collaborating. Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,

IL.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for

traditional and interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 16(4), 338-357.

Stites, R. (1998). Evaluation of project-based learning: What does research say about

outcomes from project-based learning? Retrieved November 11, 2005, from

http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/pblresch.htm.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

Stuhlmann, J. M., & Taylor, H. G. (1998). Analyzing the impact of telecommunications

on learning outcomes in elementary classrooms. Journal of Computing in

Childhood Education, 9(1), 79-92.

Survey Monkey Website. (2008). Retrieved on June 10, 2008, at

http://www.surveymonkey.com.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for

transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.

278

http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/pblresch.htm


Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and

schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University.

Thomas, J. W. (2000, March). A review of research on project-based learning. San

Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from

http://www.k12reform.org/foundation/pbl/research/summary.pdf.

Thorndike, R. S. (1968). Review of Pygmalion in the classroom. American Educational

Research Journal, 5(4), 708-711.

Thorsen, C. (2003). Techtactics: Instructional models for educational computing. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Tongdeelert, P. (2003). A proposed collaborative computer network-based learning

model for undergraduate students with different learning styles. Turkish Online

Journal of Distance Education, 4(4). Retrieved on January 17, 2006, at

http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde12/articles/tongdeelert.htm.

U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology:

Making the connection. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, OTA

Publication No. EHR-616.

Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2000). Bridging the boundaries of

compartmentalized knowledge; Student learning in an integrated environment.

Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1), 23-35.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot

(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3-7). New York:

Teachers College.

279

http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde12/articles/tongdeelert.htm

http://www.k12reform.org/foundation/pbl/research/summary.pdf


Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans).

Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes

(14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Wang, M., Poole, M., Harris, B., & Wangemann, P. (2001). Promoting online

collaborative learning experiences for teenagers. Educational Media

International, 38(4), 203-215.

Ware, P. D. (2003). From involvement to engagement in online communication:

Promoting intercultural competence in foreign language education. Unpublished

dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Ware, P. D. (2005). "Missed" communication in online communication: Tensions in a

German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64-

89.

Wells, M. (2006). Collaborative online projects in a global community. In T. Townsend

& R. Bates (Eds.), Handbook of teacher education (pp. 657-674). The

Netherlands: Springer.

Williams, L. (2003, February). Finding the perfect fit: Integrating technology into the

classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the Oklahoma Technology

Association/Bartlesville Public Schools Curriculum/Technology Conference,

Bartlesville, OK.

Wilson, B. G. (Ed.) (1998). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in

instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technologies.

280


Wineburg, S. S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self fulfilling prophecy. Educational

Researcher, 16(9), 28-37.

Winters, K. (1998). All classrooms connected to the Internet. Retrieved January 7, 2007,

from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EDInitiatives/98/98-07-07.html#4.

Wrigley, H. S. (1998). Knowledge in action: The promise of project-based learning.

Focus on Basics, 2(D), 13-18.

Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality.

Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.

Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Zimmerman, S. O., Zimmerman, W. B., & Blanton, W. E. (1995, April). The impact of

technology on students with exceptionalities: Lessons for inclusion. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the America Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

281


APPENDIX A

iEARN Learning Circles Registration Site

282


APPENDIX B

Consent Email for Surveys

Seeking Your Help With A Research Survey

Dear [FirstName],

Welcome to the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles. We hope that you have a wonderful experience with your students. We are inviting a select group of participants in this session to participate in a research study to explore the use of Learning Circles in your classroom. We are sure that you have expectations and thoughts that have motivated you to participate in Learning Circles. The goals of this study are to understand why you chose to use telecollaborative project work and to understand the outcomes you experience over the session. The study will consist of a Pre-Survey given at the beginning of Learning Circles. After that, there will be a follow up survey given at week 5 and week 10. At the end of your experience we would also like to understand your experience and learn more about the outcomes you see from this participation.

Participation in this study is voluntary. You can participate in Learning Circles and not be a part of this study. However, your participation would be greatly valued as it will help advance our knowledge about the students and teacher outcomes from involvement in projects like this one. These surveys will be brief (less than 20 minutes) and posted online. You will be given a link and can easily respond using your computer connected to the Internet. We hope that you will be willing to help in this important way because of possible benefits to other educators and students.

Barry S. Kramer who you may know for his long time service to iEARN is currently a Ph.D. student at Lehigh University under the direction of Dr. Judith A. Duffield, and is conducting the primary research on this study in partial fulfillment of his requirements for a Ph.D. in Learning Sciences and Technology.

We would also like to let you know that Barry Kramer will review the messages that are exchanged in Learning Circles across the session. Please be assured that your confidentiality will be strictly maintained at all times through this process and in the writing of the final research study. No real names of participants or schools will be used in the final report. If we want to use any content from any of the messages, we will first contact the author(s) and ask for permission to use that part of the message again without using any names of authors or school names.

Should you choose to participate, your confidential responses will be used to identify strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community. If you have questions about this research or need assistance with this Website, please contact Barry Kramer at [email protected] or the Ph.D. advisor, Professor Duffield, at [email protected].

283

mailto:[email protected]



If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this survey, in general, you may contact Susan E. Disidore, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, at 610.758.3020 (United States phone number) or [email protected].

Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. We hope you choose to participate!

To participate, please go to [Survey Link] http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=98319579057 and complete the survey by October 10th.

Best Regards,

Barry S. KramerPrimary Researcher

Judith A. Duffield, Ph.D.Co-Researcher

284


APPENDIX C

Pre-Survey

Research Instrument: Telecollaborative Project Work

Screen 1 - Introduction and Consent

Dear Interested Participant;

Welcome to the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles. The goals of this study are to understand why you chose to use telecollaborative project work and to understand the outcomes you experience over the session. The findings from this study will be used to develop strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community.

Your participation in this research is vital to our understanding of how projects like Learning Circles work. We appreciate the time and energy you are willing to devote to assisting us. If you are willing to participate in this Telecollaborative Project Work survey please provide a working email address below as indication of your consent.

Please be advised that by agreeing to participate and complete this survey, you are accepting the conditions of confidentiality stated in the invitation to participate and you are giving your consent to the investigators to use your responses in the study. All the information you give during the course of this survey will remain confidential. Responses to this research will be passed on in aggregate, but will not be attributed to any identifiable individual. Your privacy will be protected and none of your contact information will be passed on to third parties for marketing or other purposes.

If you have questions about this research or need assistance with this Website, please contact Barry Kramer at [email protected] or the Ph.D. advisor, Professor Duffield, at [email protected].


Thank you!

1. To continue, please provide your working email address:

285




Screen 2 - Open Ended Question on Telecollaborative Project Work

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Telecollaborative Project Work survey. Your participation in this study will look at teacher expectations for using telecollaborative project work in the hope that we can provide future direction to educators, program directors, and policy makers.

The first three questions are open-ended questions. Write as much as you need to thoroughly answer this question.

For the purposes of these questions the term “telecollaborative project work” refers to student-based project work that is accomplished between schools in different geographic regions by the use of information and communication technologies (ICT).

The term “telecollaboration” refers to students from different geographic locations working together to share research, ideas, opinions, and beliefs by means of online forums, emails, chats, and other forms of communication technology.

You have decided to participate in this current session of Learning Circles. We are interested to know more about what motivated you to make this choice.

2. What expectations do you have for Learning Circles?


As noted earlier in the survey:

For the purposes of these questions the term “telecollaborative project work” refers to student-based project work that is accomplished between schools in different geographic regions by the use of information and communication technologies (ICT).


Most likely, when you decided to participate in Learning Circles, there were some outcomes for your students that you were expecting.

3. What outcomes are you hoping to realize for your students as you use Learning Circles?

286




For the purposes of these questions the term “telecollaborative project work” refers to student based project work that is accomplished between schools in different geographic regions by the use of information and communication technologies (ICT).


As a teacher who is participating in this telecollaborative project work experience with your students, it is possible that you may have some of your own learning goals.

4. Do you have any learning goals for yourself in this telecommunication project? If so, what are they?

Screen 5 – Use of Project Work with Technology

Use of Project Work with TechnologyThis survey will be used to understand your use of project work with technology among students. You are being asked to rate your practice in various dimensions of project work. Different levels of practice are given for each scale. You may rate yourself at any level along each scale.

Management5. Please rate yourself on how you organize your class for project work.Fully Teacher Managed

Fully Student Managed

Assessment 6. Please rate yourself on how you assess student projects.Minimal Use of Assessment

Multiple Uses of Assessment

Real World Experiences 7. Please rate how your choice of project experiences for students is related to real world experiences.Not Related to the Real World

Related to the Real World

287


Decision Making 8. Please rate how you manage the decision making process for project work.Teacher Makes Decisions

Students Make Decisions

Central Question 9. Please rate how the central problem or driving question is determined in the project experiences you use with students.Identified by Teacher

Identified by Students

Curriculum10. Please rate how the project experiences you select for students are related to the school curriculum.Not Related To Curriculum

Curriculum Based

ICT Use11. Please rate how students in their projects use ICT.Minimal Use of ICT

Multiple Uses of ICT

Student Collaboration 12. Please rate the role of student collaboration in project experiences you design for students.Minimal Student Collaboration

Student Collaboration at All Phases

Depth of Study 13. Please rate your goals for depth of study in project experiences you design for students.Cursory Study In-Depth Study

End of Project14. Please rate on how you focus on the ending of a project experience for you students.Focus on Process

Focus on End Project

Screen 6 – Optional Information

Please use this space to share or express any information that you believe would be of interest or use to this research or the researchers.Screen 7 – Extended Participation

288


Question 15: A very important part of this study will be for the researchers to follow a select number of participants in this Learning Circle more closely with the hope of developing a detailed description of your experience. We are looking for participants with different levels of previous experience ranging from those who are participating for the first time to those who have extensive experience. We will be building our case studies by interviewing and communicating with you on a regular basis by use of a phone call and/or email. The case study may also include completing surveys and reviewing and analyzing your email correspondence, and other documents that you exchange with your Learning Circle partners. Would you be willing to participate in this more extended research? Please indicate below.

Yes No

Screen 8 - Background Information

It is important that we have some general background information about you.


For the purposes of these questions the term “telecollaborative project work” refers to student based project work that is accomplished between schools in different geographic regions by the use of Internet and communication technology.


16. Years of experience teaching with Telecollaborative Project Work:

No Experience Less Than 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More that 10 – Please fill in number of years

289


17. Years of experience in any role (teaching, administrative, support, student, etc.) with Telecollaborative Project Work:


18. Years of experience with Internet communication technologies (i.e. e-mail, online forums, synchronous chat sessions, etc):


290


19. Years of experience with project-based teaching methodologies (i.e. project-based learning or project-based approaches to classroom management):


20. Please choose one of the following statements that you think best describes how you integrate technology in your classroom.

I am still learning how to use and integrate technology and have little or no experience.

I am using technology to support my traditional instructional practices, but have not made any specific changes to those actual practices.

I am thoroughly integrating technology into my traditional classroom practice. I use productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, databases, graphic programs, presentation tools, and content-specific software.

I use technology and incorporate it constantly into my own work practices and classroom. My instruction focuses on the use of cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work.

I am beginning to discover, experiment, and design new uses for technology tools and am creating projects that incorporate multiple technologies.

21. The location where you work (country, state/province, city):

22. Current job title:

291


23. The type of educational institution your work for (check all that apply):

Elementary School Middle School High School College or University Educational Support Program Other (please describe)

24. The name (or names) of the organization or educational institution you currently work for:

Screen 9 – Thank you! Thank you for sharing your time and expertise. Your Learning Circle experience will begin in a few days and we will contact you if you expressed interest in volunteering to participate in our case studies. We will also be asking you to complete some periodic surveys as the Learning Circles project progresses.

Best Regards,Barry S. KramerJudy Duffield

292


APPENDIX D

Interim Survey

Assessing Your Experience Survey

Dear [FirstName],

You have now completed 5 (10) weeks of your Learning Circles experience. As a person involved in telecollaborative project work, you are invited to assess your expectations and provide feedback on your experience up to this point. Your continued participation in this study is vital to our understanding of how projects like Learning Circles work. We appreciate the time and energy you are willing to devote to assisting us.

As a reminder, the goals of this study are to understand why you chose to use telecollaborative project work and to understand the outcomes you experience over the session. The findings from this study will be used to develop strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work the international educational community.

Your participation in this study is of great importance because only through understanding the experiences of educators like you will we be able to understand more about projects like Learning Circles and how they affect the teachers and students who participate in them.

Should you choose to participate, your confidential responses will be used to identify strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community.




To participate, please go to [SurveyLink] http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=98319579057 and complete the survey by November 10th.

Best Regards,


293





294


Interim Survey: Telecollaborative Project Work


Dear Learning Circle Member;

You have now completed 5 (10) weeks of your Learning Circles experience. As a person involved in telecollaborative project work, you are invited to reassess the survey questions you answered at the beginning of the project and provide feedback on your experience up to this point.

As a reminder, the goals of this study are to understand why you chose to use telecollaborative project work and to understand the outcomes you experience over the session. The findings from this study will be used to develop strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community.

Your participation in this study is of great importance because only through understanding the experiences of educators like you will we be able to understand more about projects like Learning Circles and how they affect the teachers and students who participate in them. If you are willing to participate in this next survey please provide a working email address below as indication of your consent.




Thank you!


295




Screen 2 – Questions on Your Expectations Regarding Telecollaborative Project Work

Below are questions for you to rate. There is also an opportunity for you to provide written comments if you wish.




2. To what extent is Learning Circles meeting your expectations?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Meeting Meeting Some of Fully MeetingMy Expectations My Expectations My Expectations

3. Have your expectations changed since you began the project?

No Yes

If there was a change, please describe for us how your expectations have changed.

296


4. How are the outcomes for students you anticipated meeting your expectations?

1 2 3 4 5


What is the most important outcome that you see right now in your classroom?

5. How are the areas for your own personal growth you anticipated meeting your expectations?

1 2 3 4 5


What is the most important area of personal growth that you are experiencing right now?

6. Please rate your overall experience with Learning Circles.

1 2 3 4 5


297


Screen 3 – Project Progress

7. Describe how your Learning Circle experience is going so far? What is working well for you? What is not working?

Screen 4 - Reasons for Participation

Below is a list of the top expectations teachers identified as their reasons for signing up for Learning Circles.

8. Choose your number one student expectation for Learning Circles.

To provide motivating and enriching learning activities for students To provide students with opportunities to improve their language and communication skills

To allow students to engage in collaborative project-work To promote student global awareness and exposure to other cultures To increase students' experience with ICT Other (please specify)

9. Choose your number one expectation for yourself for Learning Circles.

To gain experience with telecollaborative project work To improve my computer and ICT skills To gain and exchange creative ideas with other teachers To improve my general teaching skills To develop friendships and expose myself to teachers from other cultures Other (please specify)

Screen 5 – Optional Information

10. Please use this space to share or express any information that you believe would be of interest or use to this research or the researchers.

Screen 6 – Thank You! Thank you for sharing your time and expertise. Your Learning Circle experience will continue for another 10 (5) weeks. We will also be asking you at the end of week to complete a similar survey.


298


APPENDIX E

Post Survey

Post Survey Regarding Your Learning Circles Experience

Dear [FirstName],

You have now completed all phases of your Learning Circles experience. As a person involved in telecollaborative project work, you are invited to answer some survey questions to assess your experience with Learning Circles.

As a reminder, the goals of this study are to understand why you chose to use telecollaborative project work and to understand the outcomes you experienced over the session. The findings from this study will be used to develop strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community.

Your participation in this study is of great importance because only through understanding the experiences of educators like you will we be able to understand more about projects like Learning Circles and how they affect the teachers and students who participate in them.

Should you choose to participate, your confidential responses will be used to identify strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community.

If you have questions about this research or need assistance with this Website, please contact Barry Kramer at [email protected] or the Ph.D. advisor, Professor Duffield, at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this survey, in general, you may contact Susan E. Disidore, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, at 610.758.3020 (United States phone number) or [email protected].

Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. We hope you choose to complete the final survey. It is very important component of our research.

To participate, please go to [SurveyLink] http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=98319579057 and complete the survey by January 25th.

Best Regards,


Judith A. Duffield, Ph.D.

299




Co-Researcher

300


APPENDIX F

Post Survey: Telecollaborative Project Work


Dear Learning Circle Member;

You have now completed the last phase of your Learning Circles experience. As a person involved in telecollaborative project work, we would appreciate your feedback on your experience with Learning Circles and the use of telecollaborative project work in general.

As a reminder, the goals of this study are to understand why you chose to use telecollaborative project work and to understand the outcomes you experienced over the session. The findings from this study will be used to develop strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community.

Your participation in this study is of great importance because only through understanding the experiences of educators like you will we be able to understand more about projects like Learning Circles and how they affect the teachers and students who participate in them. If you are willing to participate in this last survey please provide a working email address below as indication of your consent.





301




Screen 2 – Questions on Your Expectations Regarding Telecollaborative Project Work

Below are questions for you to rate. There is also an opportunity for you to provide written comments if you wish.




2. To what extent did Learning Circles meet your expectations?

1 2 3 4 5

Did Not Meet Met Some of Fully MetMy Expectations My Expectations My Expectations

3. Did your expectations change since you began the project?

No Yes

If there was a change, please describe for us how your expectations changed.

4. To what extent did the outcomes to students you anticipated meet your expectations?

1 2 3 4 5


What was the most important outcome that you saw in your classroom?

302


5. To what extent did the areas of personal growth you anticipated meet your expectations?

1 2 3 4 5


What was the most important area of personal growth that you experienced?

6. Please rate your overall experience with using Learning Circles.

1 2 3 4 5


Screen 3 - Learning Circle Process

Below is a list of the main phases of the Learning Circles process.

7. Choose the phase of Learning Circles that you believe best helped you to fulfill your expectations.

Exchange of Teacher Information Class Survey and Exchange of Student Information Development of Project Idea Exchange of Student Work Publication of Student Work Other (please specify)

303


Screen 4 – Future Participation

9. Would you participate in Learning Circles again?

Yes No

Follow-up Comments:

Please share with us you reasons for choosing yes or no.

10. Would you participate in another telecollaborative project work experience like Learning Circles?

Yes No

Follow-up Comments:

Please share with us you reasons for choosing yes or no.

Screen 5 – Optional InformationPlease use this space to share or express any information that you believe would be of interest or use to this research or the researchers.

Screen 6 - Thank you! Thank you for sharing your time and expertise. We have truly appreciated all the time and effort you have given to this research.


304


APPENDIX G

Consent Email for Case Study

Seeking Your Consent for Your Participation in a Case Study

Dear [FirstName],

Thank you for expressing interesting in participating in a case study investigation of your Learning Circle group. We are seeking your confidential input to do a comprehensive investigation of the expectations and experiences that you and your fellow participants will encounter by participating in a Learning Circle experience.

We are sure that you have expectations and thoughts that have motivated you to participate in Learning Circles. The goal of this study is to understand your motivation for getting involved in telecollaborative project work. Your participation in this case study will involve an additional commitment of time than your normal Learning Circles experience. By participating in this case study we will be seeking your input in the following areas (estimates of time are given with each experience):

A Pre-Survey given at the beginning of Learning Circles (Already Completed) A phone or email interview at the beginning of the project. Please note that if a

phone interview is used it will be taped recorded. (1 hour) Updates regarding your experience about every two weeks (15 minutes each) A follow-up survey given at week 5 and week 10 (20 minutes each) A post survey at the end of your experience (25 minutes)

In addition to these interviews and surveys, please be also advised that we will be examining the messages that you send to your group members as well as the student project work that you exchange with other Circle members. Please be assured that your confidentiality will be strictly maintained at all times through this process and in the writing of the final research study.

Your participation in this case study is strictly voluntary and if you decide not to participate it will not affect your Learning Circle placement or experience in any way. Also you are free to discontinue your participation in this research at any time.

A fellow iEARN member, Barry S. Kramer, a student at Lehigh University under the direction of Dr. Judith A. Duffield, is conducting the primary research on this study in partial fulfillment of his requirements for a Ph.D. in Learning Sciences and Technology.


305


Should you choose to participate, please indicate your consent by going to the following Website and entering your email address. You will be asked a few questions on how to best contact you.

Consent Website, [SurveyLink]http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=98319579057.

Your confidential responses will be used to identify strategies to promote greater usage of telecollaborative project work throughout the international educational community. If you have questions about this survey, please contact Barry Kramer at [email protected] or the Ph.D. advisor, Professor Duffield, at [email protected].


To participate, please go to [SurveyLink] http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=98319579057 and complete the survey by October 10th.

Best Regards,



306



http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=98319579057


APPENDIX H

Interview Protocol for Case Studies

Anticipated Lines of Questioning

All introductory questions will be the same for each participant. Follow-up questions will be pursued based on the responses of the participants.

Beginning procedure for taping interview:

1. Prior to turning on the recording device, I will advise the interviewee that I would like to tape record the conversation. I will tell him/her that I will again ask for his/her permission once I turn on the tape recording device.

2. I will turn on tape recording device.3. I will ask for permission to tape the interview so that the consent is tape-recorded.

Discussion Thread 1 - Background Information and Expectations

How did you first become involved in iEARN?

The terms ICT and tellecollaboration are commonly associated with iEARN projects, how do you define each of these?

Could you share with me how you have used ICT and tellecollaboration before?

Are you familiar with project-based learning? Have you used this methodology before?

How do you define project-based learning?

How do you use project-based learning in your classroom?

How do you organize and manage students for project-based learning activities?

How did you find out about Learning Circles?

What expectations motivated you to use Learning Circles with your students?

Could you share with me the influences that helped you to develop your list of expectations?

Are your expectations related more to specific curriculum objectives of your school or other goals you may have for your students? (Ask, if needed)

Of the expectations you identified for me, which one is most important to you?

307


How would you describe your level of technology integration?

What barriers have you encountered as you have attempted to use technology in your teaching?

Discussion Thread 2 – Benefits to Students

What benefits are you hoping to realize for your students by using Learning Circles?

Could you share with me the influences that helped you to develop your list of anticipated benefits to students?

Of the benefits to students you identified for me, which one is most important to you?

Discussion Thread 3 – Personal and Professional Benefits

What are you hoping to gain personally by using Learning Circles with your students?

Could you share with me the influences that helped you to develop your list of anticipated personal and professional benefits?

Of the personal and professional benefits you identified for me, which one is most important to you?

Do you know of other teachers in your schools that are doing this type of activity?

Why do you think you were drawn to this type of activity?

Is there a question I did not ask that you were anticipating or hoping to hear? How would you answer that question?

Is there any other information you would like to share with me before we conclude this interview?

308


APPENDIX I

Participant Reconfirmation Message

Finalizing Your Learning Circle Registration

September 17, 2008

Dear Prospective Learning Circle Registrant;

You are receiving this email because you filled out an online registration to participate in the September 2008 to January 2009 session of Learning Circles. In order to finalize your registration I need you to read the following email and complete a few questions. If you wish to participate it is required that you respond to this email and answer the following questions by September 22nd. Please use your email reply button and send your response back to me at [email protected]. DO NOT fill out another online registration form.

It is also important that you understand a few important facts and details about Learning Circles. This project is intended to be a highly interactive and structured project for students and teachers who are genuinely interested in collaborative online project work.

By joining this project you are committing to being an active participant. This means you and your students will make every attempt to write and post the following over the next four months:

1. A teacher introduction letter2. A Class Survey3. A Project Idea4. Responses to Project Ideas from other schools5. A final publication (in Word, html, pdf, or PowerPoint format)6. A Goodbye Message from you and your students

There will be other opportunities to interact and communicate, but these are the core, required activities. My commitment to you is to provide you leadership and to guide you step-by-step through each activity. Also, please be advised that all the communication is in English.

There are a large number of interested participants this session. It may not be possible to place you in your first choice. For this reason I am requesting first and second choices of projects. Also, please realize that placements are assigned based on the order that I receive them. The quicker your response the more likely you are to get your first choice.

In the next few days you will also be receiving an email from me giving you details of how you can participate in Learning Circles research studies that I will be conducting this session. I would appreciate it greatly if you would carefully read the email and consider participating.

309


If you are ready and eager to commit to these activities then there are a few pieces of information I need you to reconfirm for me.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Teacher contact name:Email address for Circle messages (sending and receiving):School name:City, Country:

Please choose a Grade Level for your Learning Circles participation:Elementary (grades K – 5; ages 5 - 10)Middle (grades 6 – 9; ages 11 - 14)High School (grades 10 – 12 or higher; ages 15 – 18 or higher)

Please make a first and second choice for a Learning Circle topic:Computer ChroniclesPlaces and PerspectivesMindworksMy Hero

*We really need group facilitators. If you have experience with previous sessions of Learning Circles and would be willing to serve as a facilitator (group leader) and help with communication in your Circle please indicate here:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After I receive you reply I will put together the Learning Circle groups and subscribe you to the correct forum. You will receive a message from the forum letting you know that your Circle is open. You will also receive the email address where you will send all of your messages. In addition, you will receive periodic newsletters from me called Circle News that will give you detailed instructions on what you should be doing and when activities should be completed.

Please check to make sure that your email address is able to receive group email messages. Many school email programs have software that blocks emails sent from groups.

I have instituted this additional registration step to help promote commitment and interaction in the Circles. My goal is to let each person clearly know what is required and to re-emphasize how important it is for each school to live up your commitment.

I think that you will find the Learning Circle experience really exciting and motivating for your students. Our final projects in the past have been terrific and we have an

310


incredible number of committed past participants. Learning Circles has an excellent history of quality project work.

If you need help or have any questions I am always available to guide you along the way.

Thank you for your interest and I look forward to your reply,Barry

iEARN Learning Circleshttp://www.iearn.org/circlesBarry S. KramerLearning Circles [email protected]@ftschool.org

311



APPENDIX J

Circle News 1

LEARNING CIRCLE NEWS 1http://www.iearn.org/circles/

Getting Ready for Learning Circle Interactions ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~September 25, 2008

Learning Circles......are about ready to spin into action. Are you ready?

Notes:****************************1. I am sending you this message because you filled out a Learning Circles Placement form and replied to email Registration Form that I sent to you.2. If you changed your mind about participating in LEARNING CIRCLES, please send me a note letting me know that you will not be participating in this session of Learning Circles.

****************************

Information is available on the Web for:Web Address: http://www.iearn.org/circles/circleNews/1/index.html

Getting ReadyPreparing Your StudentsYour Circle AddressReceiving Circle MessagesReceiving Circle Messages Via the WebSending Messages To Everyone in the CircleiEARN instructions on how to access Learning Circles through iEARN WebsiteWhat To Expect

****************************

For help with technical problems please contact:iEARN support Center: https://media.iearn.org/contact

312

http://www.iearn.org/circles/


or me, Barry Kramer at:[email protected] [email protected]

Margaret Riel ([email protected]) sends her very best wishes for a great session. She is still here in the background and watches the Circles.

You are not alone - we are here ready and willing to help!

--------------------------------------------------------------Next Circle News with instructions for Hello Messagesand Class Surveys will be sent around October 1, 2008-------------------------------------------------------------- Your Circle participant list will be sent around Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Circles should be fully ready to start by next week.

= = = = = = T H E E N D = = = = = =

iEARN Learning Circleshttp://www.iearn.org/circlesBarry S. KramerLearning Circles [email protected]@ftschool.org

313


APPENDIX K

Class Survey Template

The Classroom Survey -- Getting to Know You!

Circle Name:Class Name:

PART I. INTRODUCING THE CLASS

A. Name of teacher:

B. Grade level:

C. Class favorites (List your class top 5 favorites in each category):

1. Music groups

2. Authors

3. TV programs

4. Foods

5. School subjects

6. Sports

7. Video or computer games

8. Other Class Favorites of your choice

PART II. INTRODUCING THE SCHOOL

A. School information

1. Name and address of class and school

2. Number of students in class and school

3. Size of school

4. School emblem, colors or mascot

314


5. Type and number of computers

6. School history

B. School program

1. List 3 things about your school program that make it unique. 2. List school calendar from the session dates (holidays and special events that may affect your participation).

PART III. INTRODUCING THE COMMUNITY

A. Your community

1. Name of your community

2. If not a city, name and size of nearest city

3. Location of your community

4. The area of your community

5. The population of your community

B. Special characteristics

1. List 3 reasons why people come to visit your area.

2. Describe any unusual land formation found in or near your community.

C. Industries

List major industries or occupations in your community.

PART IV. OTHER INFORMATION

Please feel free to share any other information about yourself that you think

would help us to know you better.

315


APPENDIX L

Circle News 2


Opening The Learning Circle~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~October 5, 2008 Welcome to your Learning Circle!!!Address: [email protected]

Faciliator: xxxx [email protected]

Electronic Roll Call:

NOW is the time to send your~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TEACHER HELLO MESSAGES

and next week you will need to send your

CLASS SURVEY &WELCOME PACKS!

Information is available on the Web for:

Circle News 2: http://www.iearn.org/circles/circleNews/2/index.html

Teachers Hello MessageClass IntroductionsClass SurveyGetting to Know YouWelcome PacksWhere to Send Your MessagesLearning Circle Interaction: Class-to-Class Communication vs. Pen PalMessages

***********************************************

316


This is the last chance to participate in the Learning Circles ResearchStudy and to make yourself eligible for the drawing for an iPod Touch. Ifyou have not completed Survey 1, please do so as soon as possible.

URL for the first research survey is:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=QM1miHCudmjCVbnJiHNk7g_3d_3d

A special thank you to all who have already completed the survey. Thesecond survey will be available in about 4 weeks.

WE HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR FIRST WEEK!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Next Phase, Planning the Circle Projects, begins in two weeks-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look for:

Your Learning Circle Classroom Survey template this week.

In two weeks look for Circle News 3: with advice on selecting aLearning Circle Project.

T H E E N D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

iEARN Learning Circleshttp://www.iearn.org/circlesBarry KramerLearning Circles [email protected]@ftschool.org

317



APPENDIX M

Circle News 3


Planning Learning Circle Projects~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~October 19, 2008

^^^^^ Phase 3: Weeks 3-4: October 20 - November 2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Planning Learning Circle Projects ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS WEEK YOUR GOAL IS TODISCUSS, PLAN, AND CREATE PROJECT IDEAS

****************************

Information is available on the Web for Circle News 3:Web Address: http://www.iearn.org/circles/circleNews/3/index.html

A MUST READ FOR ALL PARTICIPANTSPlanning Circle Projects: The Heart and Soul of Learning Circles

Last Call for Teacher Hello Messages, Class Surveys, and Welcome Packs

The Speedy Rabbit AwardWeb Address: http://www.iearn.org/circles/circleNews/3/speedyRabbit.html

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@FINISHING UP OLD BUSINESSYour goal this week is to develop your Project Idea with the membersof your Learning Circle group. At the same time you should also finish upyouropening activities such as Teacher Hello Messages, Class Surveys, andWelcome Packs.

PLEASE NOTE: Send all email to the circle address so everyone can enjoythemessages AND they will be saved in the forum. If a teacher joins late,they willstill be able to read the earlier messages.@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I hope all of you are enjoying getting acquainted this session. We are

318


very close toseeing full participation in every Learning Circle.

+---------------------------+Look for the nextCircle News onOctober 27th withIdeas for Exchangingstudent work+---------------------------+

Learning Circles are spinning into action*///////=====================------------

>>>>>> End of Circle News............

iEARN Learning Circleshttp://www.iearn.org/circlesBarry KramerLearning Circles [email protected]@ftschool.orgSkype name: bskramer48

319


APPENDIX N

Project Idea Template

Hi Circle Members;

I have put together a simple Project Idea Template to help you present your Project Idea to your Circle members. You are welcome to add more detail, sections, or whatever else you need to describe your project. This template is intended as a beginning guide to help you get started.

Happy planning,Barry

iEARN Learning Circleshttp://www.iearn.org/circlesBarry KramerLearning Circles Coordinator

===============================================

Project Idea Template

Learning Circle Group: Sponsoring Teacher:Sponsor School:City:Country:Name of Project:

Goal Of The Project:

Type Of Writing Requested:

Description Of What You Are Looking For From Other Schools:

Example: Questions:Story Prompts:

Detailed Instructions For Collecting Information:

Ideal Number Of Submissions From Each School:

Preferred Length Of Articles:

Deadline For Receiving Information (Circle deadline is December 5, 2008):

320


APPENDIX O

Circle News 4


Exchanging Work on Circle Projects~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~October 29, 2008

...ooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo.... Learning Circles are Rounding Out...ooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo....

Are you getting ready to roll into project work?

The introductions and friendly letters need to give way to class projects. If you have found new friends, and we hope you have, please send friendlymessages to their school e-mail directly and save the circle space forwork on projects. This is a group-to-group exchange for work on yourcollaborative Circle projects and publications.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IF YOU HAVE NOT SENT YOUR PROJECT IDEANOW IS THE TIME TO SEND IT<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Planning Circle Projects: Important Items to Consider

Consider This Example: Example of Class vs. Network Activity

A Good Strategy for Meeting Deadlines is Keeping Ahead of Schedule

Circle Progress Checklist

Tips on Learning Circle Interaction

The Speedy Rabbit Award for Project IdeasWeb Address: http://www.iearn.org/circles/circleNews/4/speedyRabbit.html

321


*********** R E M E M B E R ***************

Learning Circle HOME PAGE on the WORLD WIDE WEB:http://www.iearn.org/circles/

Please send any inquiries, questions or concerns you may have regardingyour Classroom Connections experience to your

**********************Learning Circle Facilitator**********************


---------------------------------------------------------Next Circle News: Monday, November 30Updates will continue to be sent weekly---------------------------------------------------------

ENJOY-- !!!

******************************************************************THE END


322


APPENDIX P

Circle News 5

LEARNING CIRCLE NEWS 5http://www.iearn.org/circles/ Completing Learning Circle Projects~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~December 1, 2008

..........................................................

WE ARE NEARING THE END OF THE PERIOD FOR EXCHANGING STUDENTS WORK

-----------------------------------------You Need to plan for the Completion of All project work !!!-----------------------------------------


Planning For a Strong Finish

Review The Responses From Other Schools

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Your group facilitators are doing a terrific job. Please be sure to check in with them and let them know how you are doing.

Please send any inquiries, questions or concerns you may have regarding your experience to your:

******************************************** Learning Circle Facilitator or to me ([email protected])********************************************

You are not alone - we are here ready and willing to help! (Please include the name of your circle!)

+--------------------------------------------------------------+Look for the next Circle News on December 8th withIdeas for assembling The Learning Circle Publication+--------------------------------------------------------------+

323



******************************************************************

THE END


324


APPENDIX Q

Circle News 6


Learning Circle Publications~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~December 8, 2008

--------------------------------------------------Time is flying by, publishing deadlines coming-------------------------------------------------- TIME FLIES.....you should be finished or finishing your writing for Circle projects. Remember other students are depending on your to keep to the schedule! I have seen a great deal of writing these past two weeks in all of the Circles. However, there are still many projects are waiting for your response.

Following schedules is an important workplace skill. Your Circle is free to adjust the deadlines if you all agree.

Your Circles will remain open with the current participants until January 15, 2009. At that time I will close them and prepare the next session of Learning Circles.

########################################

ORGANIZING THE CIRCLE PUBLICATIONDecember 8, 2008 TO January 4, 2009

########################################


*How to Publish Your Final Projects*Examples of Past Projects*Analyzing Project Information*Teacher's Role*Assembling the Circle Publication*Checklist of things To Do

[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]---[]

325



********** R E M E M B E R **********

For help with administrative problems please contact: [email protected]

Please send any inquiries, questions or concerns you may have regarding your Classroom Connections experience to your

**********************Learning Circle Facilitator**********************

@-+-+-+ WWW access to Learning Circle Conferences +-+-+@

A great way to access the Learning Circle and all other iEARN conferences is via the WWW. Messages are easy to post and you can see at a glance all the messages that have been posted to the circle during the current session.

http://foro.iearn.org

Direct links to the actual forums where all messages are archived can be found on the Learning Circles Web page at: http://www.iearn.org/circles/

You will need to sign in with your iEARN password (check with your country coordinator for this information).

Use the pulldown menu to find the circle name and push go. All of the messages are stored here with messages that have the same subject headers listed together in a thread.


+-------------------------------------------------------+Look for the last Circle News during the second week of January for Ideas on Closing your Learning Circle+-------------------------------------------------------+

Learning Circles publications are in process……….*)///////////X=====================------------

____________________________________________________

The next session of Learning Circles will begin in January of 2009. You may register now at: http://media.iearn.org/coursereglc.

326


The research for this session of Learning Circles will continue until the end of the project. A Second Interim Survey will be available shortly and an End of Project Survey will be available in January. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

If you have enjoyed your iEARN experience please consider attending the 2009 iEARN International Conference in Ifrane, Morocco this July. It is an incredible experience that is guaranteed to change your life. Details can be found on the iEARN Website or at http://www.iearn2009.ma/

*************************************************************THE END


327


APPENDIX R

Circle News 7


Closing The Learning Circle~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~January 7, 2009

January 5 - January 12, 2009Closing the Learning Circle

. . . . . . . . .//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\The end of this Learning Circlesession is rapidly approaching\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\// ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

LEARNING CIRCLES ARE A TEAM EFFORT --YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A TEAM THAT IS DEPENDING ON YOU!!!!!!!

Tasks to Complete:

1) Edit, format, print, post or mail your section of the publication2) Publish your newspaper, journal or booklet for your students3) Respond to any additional questions or ending activities4) Say goodbye to your Learning Circle partners


*Sending Your Part of the Publication*Publish Your Work*Respond to Any Additional Questions* Say Goodbye To Your Learning Circle Partners!

***************** R E M E M B E R ***************

YOUR LEARNING CIRCLE WILL FORMALLY CLOSE ON: Monday, January 12, 2009

328



The Circle links will remain in place for a few days after the official closing date for those that have slipped a bit behind schedule.

-------- BEFORE YOU GO ---------

Remember to send a note this week telling others when (date) and where (online or postal mail) to expect your section of the publication.

I will be featuring all completed projects on a “Projects Page”. The Web address will be:http://www.iearn.org/circles/2008session2/index.htm

If you would like your project featured on this Website please send me: 1). A copy of your completed project as a Word file, PowerPoint, PDF file, html file, Wiki, Blog, Mp3 file, or URL address2). Please send me the name of your group (cce1, ccm1, ppm1, pph1, etc,), the name of your school, and the city, state, and country your school is located. 3). Projects and URL addresses can be sent to [email protected] or [email protected].

AND now, please join with us at iEARN in thanking your

**********************Learning Circle Facilitators**********************

They contribute many hours of their timeto make the Learning Circle experiencemore enjoyable.

SPECIAL THANKS TO:

*********************************** *** xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx ******* xxxxx xxxxxxxx **** *** xxxxxxx xxxxx ****** xxxxx xxxxx ******* xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx ******* xxxxx xxxxxxx ****** xxxx xxxxxxxx ******* xxxxxxx xxxxx ******* xxxxxx xxxxxx ******* xxx xxxxx ************************************An extra special heartfelt thank you for all the time, energy and care you share with your colleagues. You make Learning Circles possible!!!!

329


I hope that others will want to join you as facilitators in future sessions...

The next session of Learning Circles will begin on January 30, 2009. You may register now at: http://media.iearn.org/coursereglc.

The research for this session of Learning Circles will continue until the end of the project. An End of Project Survey is now available for you to complete.http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=NFRrWYG2sMnEs5Hmu2G4lw_3d_3dThis survey will be available through January. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

If you have enjoyed your iEARN experience please consider attending the 2009 iEARN International Conference in Ifrane, Morocco this July. It is an incredible experience that is guaranteed to change your life. Details can be found on the iEARN Website or at http://www.iearn2009.ma/

Learning Circles are endingbut new ones are forming now///////////X===================www.iearn.org/circles

**********************************************************T H E E N D

-------------------------------


330


VITA

Barry S. Kramer

Educational BackgroundLehigh University, Bethlehem, Penna.Doctoral Student, Seeking a Ph.D., September 2002 to PresentMajor: Learning Sciences and Technology (Doctoral Program)Qualifying Research Project: Completed May 2005Dissertation Proposal Approved September 2007

East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, Penna.M. Ed., Elementary Education, August 1988Major: Elementary Education (Certification/Master's Program)

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Penna.BA, magna cum laude, April 1980Major: Speech and Communications

Teaching Employment HistoryFranklin Township School, Quakertown, New Jersey(December 1982 to Present)Position: Teacher, 5th, 4th Grade, Self-contained classroom, all subjects

iEARN-USA, New York City, New York(September 2001 to Present)Position: Developer and Facilitator of Online Courses

Staff Development Leadership Activities:Workshop Presentations:SIRIKT 2008 Conference, Enabling Education and Research with ICT, April 14-19, 2008, Kranjska Gora, Slovenia. Presentations: Telecollaborative Project Work, Learning Circles.

International Education and Resource Network - (14th annual iEARN Conference), Cairo, Egypt, July 21 - 27, 2007. Presentations: Online Collaborative Learning Environments and Project-based Learning, Learning Circles, My Hero Learning Circles, Collaborative Online Student Projects.

National Council of Teachers of English Convention, November 19, 2005, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Presentation: Passport to Learning, Using Online Collaborative Learning Environments to Promote Global Communication and Interaction Among Youth.

Japan Education and Resource Network - jEARN (10th annual iEARN Conference), Awaji Yumebutai International Conference Center, Hyogo, Japan, July 21-25, 2003.

331


Presentations: Learning Circles and Problem Based Learning, Online Professional Development, Collaborative Online Work in the Social Studies Curriculum

Community Voices Collaborative Solutions Workshop. Sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia University in Coordination with the US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, New York City, New York, December 13, 2002. Presentations: Project Based Learning, Designing a Collaborative Online Project

Democracy Education and Exchange Project (DEEP). Sponsored by US Department of State, Washington, D.C., April, May, 2002, Presentation: Integrating Internet Projects Into the Curriculum

Teacher Recognition Day, New Jersey State Department of Education, Rider University, December 10, 2001, Presentation: The Digital Classroom and the Future of Technology in the Classroom

United States Department of State: Civics - Community Voices Collaborative Solutions Regional Conference, Cairo, Egypt, November 10 -13, 2000; Master of Ceremonies, Presentations: Integrating Internet Projects Into the Curriculum, Cooperative Learning and the Power of the Internet, Teaching Methodology and Internet Projects

Pennsylvania Educational Technology Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, February 14, 2000. Presentation: Catching School and Community Support With a Web or a Net!

Keynote Speeches:SIRIKT 2008 Conference, Enabling Education and Research with ICT, April 17, 2008, Kranjska Gora, Slovenia.

The 9th Annual Hunterdon County Distinguished Students Awards Dinner, High Bridge, New Jersey, May 16, 2002

Seventh Annual Hunterdon County Governor’s Teacher Recognition Program, Stanton Ridge, New Jersey, May 24, 2002

Awards:Global School Network Online Educator Award; Finalist, April, 2003 and April, 2002

Hunterdon County, New Jersey Teacher of the Year, 2001/2002

The Global Schoolhouse/Lightspan.com International School CyberFair Competition: “The Historic Farms of Franklin Township, Hunterdon County”: Honorable Mention: 2001

Governor's Recognition Award for Outstanding Teachers: 1991

Sallie Mae Achievement Award for Outstanding First Year Teachers: 1983

332


Publications:Kramer, B. S., Walker, A. E., & Brill, J. M. (2007). The underutilization of information and communication technology-assisted collaborative project-based learning among international educators: a Delphi study. Educational Technology & Research Development 55(5), 527–543.

"Poetry and Art in the Elementary Grades," The New Jersey English Journal, The New Jersey Council of English Teachers, Fall 1990.

Contributor (illustrations) to the New Jersey State Department HIV/AIDS Instructional Guide for Teachers, December 1990.

"Teaching Shakespeare in the Elementary Grades," The New Jersey English Journal, New Jersey Council of English Teachers, Fall, 1989.

333

investigating teachers’ expectations for using · web viewthe constructivist theory of learning...

Documents