John A. Johnson Professor of Psychology
Penn State DuBois Campus
January, 1997
ABSTRACT: (PUBLIC INFORMATION)
Introductory psychology students were assigned to 25 small groups. Groups
were instructed how to coordinate efforts to search the world wide web
and write papers on history and research methods in psychology. Paper performance
and questionnaire feedback suggested how learning improved but how it might
be better improved by modifying the innovation.
Purpose and Goals
Three primary goals motivated this project initially. First, I wanted
my students to learn more actively and interactively. For the most part,
the traditional structure of the class had 150+ isolated students sitting
passively in auditorium seats listening to my lectures. By having students
conduct research in small groups, I hoped that my students would accrue
both cognitive benefits (better comprehension) and psychosocial benefits
(feeling more connected to other students).
Second, I wanted to increase the internet literacy of my students. By
having them search the World Wide Web and communicate by email, I wanted
them to understand that learning can take place beyond the boundaries of
the classroom. I believe that internet literacy is a vital, indispensable
skill whose usefulness transcends the specific content of my course. To
be able to communicate electronically with other students and with instructors
throughout the entire day and evening enables students to get answers in
a timely fashion. The internet also promotes a feeling community, of connectedness.
Learning to find information on the internet can be useful in any course.
Finally, even informal surfing of the internet exposes students to a range
of diverse views; hopefully this reduces the parochial thinking found in
students whose families who have lived in the same small town for generations.
My third goal was to enliven concepts from the first part of the course
(history of psychology; psychological research methods) by having students
find contemporary examples of these concepts. Unless one is a history buff
or a budding scientist, history and research methods can be quite dull
for students. In my previous experience in teaching the course, I found
that students responded well when I found and shared phenomena from pop
culture that required course knowledge to understand. For example, students
became more interested in epistemology when they heard rock singer Steve
Miller sing about “epistetology” (a play on the word), and that
Pavlov came alive when they heard Mick Jagger sing “When you call
my name I salivate like a Pavlov dog.” My hope was that students could
find similar modern exemplars of historical and scientific thinking.
Initial Plan for Achieving Goals
Initially I hoped to create 25 heterogeneous groups of 7-8 students
before the course actually began. To help accomplish this, Robin
Martin, Instructional Development Specialist at the DuBois Campus, developed
and sent out a questionnaire (see Appendix A) to all students who had registered
for the course by mid-summer. The questionnaire was approved by the Office
for Regulatory Compliance, and an informed consent form was included in
the mailing. Also included was a permission form to use the results of
the student’s work in future classes. The questionnaire assessed students’
current knowledge of, and attitudes toward, computers and the internet
and also asked them how they felt about working in collaborative groups.
The plan was to distribute students with strong skills and positive attitudes
across all groups. I planned to give each group one of 25 key concepts
I identified from the first quarter of the course and ask them to locate
modern examples or applications of these concepts on the world wide web.
Robin suggested adding an experimental wrinkle to the project by having
half of the groups follow a prestructured plan, complete with objectives,
goals, timelines, and milestones. The other half of the groups would be
free to develop procedures as they saw fit. A post-evaluation questionnaire
would ascertain whether prestructuring or freedom was more conducive to
collaborative work in this project.
To insure that students could acquire the computer skills required to
carry out this project, I planned to use class time to teach them how to
use Eudora (electronic mail software) and First Class (electronic conferencing
software) and how to conduct searches on the world wide web with Netscape’s
web browser. I also planned to allow some class time for face-to-face meetings
in groups. Allowing class time for these activities required eliminating
about 50% of the material I normally presented in lecture. My hope was
that groups who required more meetings beyond those conducted in class,
but could not find a mutually convenient time to meet, could communicate
asynchronously by email or through the First Class electronic conferencing
software.
I planned to assess student performance in four ways. First, I planned
to give them the same multiple-choice test I used last year. The results
would not count toward their grade (unless the score was higher than a
score on a subsequent test) but would allow for a comparison to students
who were taught by lecture. The two assessments that would count
toward their grade were a paper (graded by me) describing the results of
their web-searching and a rating from the other group members on how much
the student contributed to the group. Finally, I planned to assess the
students’ perceptions of their skills and attitudes toward computers and
toward group work by readministering Robin Martin’s questionnaire after
the projects were completed.
Changes to the Plan
The first problem that necessitated a change in plans was a questionnaire
return rate of only about 65%. Therefore, on the first day of class I had
to distribute and collect the informed consents, questionnaires, and permission
forms. I also found out just prior to class that students had to individually
activate their email accounts by filling out a form and registering in
person with our Staff Assistant in Instructional Services, so I had to
distribute this form also. I had already planned for the first class a
short slide-show promoting active, collaborative learning and a collaborative
exercise (see Appendix B), so the 75-minute class turned out to be more
hectic than I expected. But I was able to collect the forms and conduct
the activities that day.
Another small change concerned the followup questionnaire. To save time,
I included from the 18 questions in the first questionnaire only 8 questions
most relevant to measuring the impact of the course on students. I also
added a question asking students whether they were now considering buying
their own computer (which would be an indication that they found computers
to be useful). Finally, I split and reworded item 17 from the first questionnaire
into two separate questions. The original item asked how a student would
feel about being evaluated by “interactive computers” (an ambiguous
item, at best). The followup questionnaire asked (a) how a student did
feel about doing the research paper based on searching the world wide web,
and (b) how a student did feel about working in a group.
I also had to change the plan slightly when I realized that contemporary
examples of the 25 psychological concepts were extremely difficult
to locate. I am an experienced web-surfer, but some 30 hours of searching
yielded almost nothing like I was hoping the students could find. I decided
that comprehending a concept and finding a contemporary example (either
on or off the internet) would be too demanding-both cognitively and time-wise.
I was also concerned that some of the 25 concepts would be easier, and
some, more difficult to research, which would create unfair, inequitable
demands across groups.
To overcome this problem, I substituted for the list of 25 concepts
eight broad questions (see Appendix C) that I perceived as centrally important
to the first quarter of the course. I found through my own web-searching
that answers to these questions could be found on the world wide
web. I figured that groups of eight could have each member search for web
sites related to one question, annotate the sites, and return the results
to the group. This would promote one of the two central principles of collaboration,
mutual interdependence. Mutual interdependence occurs when each
member contributes work because the job is too big for one person to do
alone. The other central principle of collaboration, individual accountability,
means that each member be held accountable by evaluating his or her own
individual work. To promote individual accountability I asked students
to write their own individual answers to the questions, and I had groups
rate the contribution of all members to the group’s common list of annotated
world wide web sites.
I also changed Robin’s plan to experiment with structured and unstructured
groups, because I was concerned that the structured group might have an
unfair advantage. Instead of giving half the groups a structured plan and
the other half, nothing, I developed and distributed one of two handouts
to each group: either a handout on directive skills or a handout on supportive
skills.
Still another change in plans concerned the use of the First Class conferencing
software. First Class can be thought of as an electronic bulletin board
wherein members of a group can post messages for everyone else to see.
First Class differs from ordinary email in that messages are posted and
stored on a central computer, called a server, rather being sent to individuals
(who may or may not save the email notes they receive). In theory, First
Class provides a more publicly accessible, permanent record of communications
than email. Unfortunately, it took the server manager two weeks to set
up the 25 groups on the server. At that point in the course, students seemed
to already have their hands full learning how to email, how to conduct
searches on the world wide web, and how to coordinate their activities
with the rest of the group. The last thing they needed was to learn how
to use another software package. Therefore, although First Class was made
available and was demonstrated in class, nobody used it.
Just before I printed the course syllabus I incorporated one final change
in plans: I promised to post on the web, several days before the second,
third, and fourth exam dates, the multiple choice questions for that exam.
(The order of the items was changed from the order in which they appeared
on the administered exam.) This change was motivated by three goals. First,
I wanted students to continue to use the web on a regular basis after the
first quarter of the course. Second, I wanted students to continue meeting
and collaborating with each other after the group project, and discussing
the exam questions was one way to accomplish this. Finally, I hoped this
opportunity to prepare for exams would reduce anxiety and boost morale
in a class that was already demanding a lot from the students.
Role of the Student Intern
I expected my intern, Cynthia Peace, simply to serve as a resource for
students who had questions about project procedures or the computer technology.
She fulfilled this role admirably. Not only did she circulate among groups
during classes to answer questions, but she also answered questions in
the computer laboratories and by email.
Cynthia also summarized the findings from the students’ web searching
by creating a web site dedicated to the project. This fulfilled a requirement
for a course she was taking from me, Liberal Arts 283 (Computer Applications
for the Liberal Arts). Her web page resides at http://www.personal.psu.edu/~cxp220/.
I would have liked Cynthia to have been able to mediate and resolve
conflicts in groups, but there were no resources to train her in conflict
resolution.
Materials, Mechanics and Logistics
Logistical challenges. The large number of groups in the course
presented a unique challenge in information management and record keeping.
One numerically intensive tasks involved distributing about 180 students
into 25 groups while insuring that each group had some members with good
computer skills and positive attitudes about group work. Another numerically
intensive task involved computing for each student a score that represented
the other group members’ perceptions of contributions to the group. Other
formidable document-management tasks included compiling and using email
addresses for mass emailing to the class, creating documents with group-specific
information for all groups, and collating and comparing the reports submitted
by the students. Completing all of these tasks successfully would be impossible
without appropriate computer support. I would recommend that only faculty
with well-developed computer skills undertake a project similar to this
one.
Technology assistance. Fortunately, this project was supported
by Penn State’s Project Empower initiative. Project Empower provided me
with an IBM 755CX ThinkPad computer and with basic wordprocessing, spreadsheet,
and internet access software. The portability of this laptop computer allowed
me to manage student records and access the internet both at home and on
campus. I cannot imagine producing the documents and maintaining accurate
databases for the course without the computer and software.
Forming groups. Students’ names were typed into a spreadsheet
by hand. I investigated ways of obtaining the student roster electronically
from Penn State’s Registrar, but I was told there was no way for instructors
to receive such electronic class lists. (Later in the semester I was informed
that one could obtain electronic class lists from a Penn State website,
http://www.oas.psu.edu/compute/clientsv/dataware/data.htm. However, when
I checked the website it said that special permissions and software had
to be obtained-at a cost-to access the records.) Next to each student’s
name I typed in their responses to items 1 (1-10 rating of level of computer
use), 2 (1-10 rating of comfort with computers), 3 (yes-no ability to go
to a web address, given the URL) 4 (1-9 number of different activities
for which a computer is currently used), 11 (yes-no have a computer where
student lives during the semester), and 17 (1-10 rating of interest level
in being evaluated through computer use rather than exams). I judged these
questions to be the best indicators of computer competency and attitudes.
I next used the spreadsheet function to sum responses to these six questions
(yes-no questions were coded 1 and 0), and then I used the sort function
to rank all students from highest to lowest scores. After sorting students
in this fashion I typed next to each name consecutive letters of the alphabet,
A, B, C, …, Y, A, B, C, …, Y, etc. (There are more precise ways of distributing
to equalize scores, but I decided that differences among students within
each block of 25 were small enough to use this method to equate the groups
approximately. By sorting on the column containing the letters representing
the groups, I could sort the entire roster by groups. I printed several
copies of the sorted roster and posted them near the auditorium entrance
so students could identify the group to which they belonged.
Initial and subsequent group meetings. Signs with the letters
A-Y were distributed around the perimeter of the auditorium. On the second
day of class students were instructed to congregate initially around the
sign with their letter. Once gathered, groups could move to another part
of the auditorium for their discussions. The noise level was not nearly
as high as I anticipated, and the 25 groups were able to conduct their
business simultaneously despite the large number of ongoing discussions.
During these discussions my intern and I circulated among the groups to
answer questions. I planned to allot a portion of class time for group
meetings for the first two weeks of the course; I extended the allotment
to the first three weeks of class at the request of the students, many
of whom said it was nearly impossible to find a mutually convenient time
for face-to-face meetings outside of class.
During the first group meeting, students simply introduced themselves
and talked informally. For their second meeting, they were instructed to
discuss the eight research questions (see Appendix C) and instructions
for the group project (see Appendix D), decide how they would share responsibilities,
and talk about how to meet or communicate outside of class time. I also
distributed to all groups a one-page handout describing, in general terms,
directive and supportive skills (see Appendix E). Attached to this page
for 12 groups were further details on directive skills (see Appendix F)
and for the other 13 groups, further details on supportive skills (see
Appendix G). Whether groups were to receive tips on either directive or
supportive group skills was determined by random numbers. During this first
week several students dropped and several students added the course, so
I added new students to the groups with the fewest members.
On the fourth day of class, groups met for the third time and received
a handout (see Appendix H) with more detailed written expectations for
how the research project should proceed, what the finished product should
look like, and how it would be graded. To confirm the accuracy of everyone’s
records, this handout listed the group members’ names and their email addresses
at the top of the first page. I generated the customized first page by
combining the spreadsheet information with the form-letter capacity of
my word processor. From the beginning of the course I had been looking
up students’ email addresses, one at a time, on Penn State’s phone server
and adding them to my spreadsheet database. This brutally time-consuming
process is now no longer necessary, as faculty can request an entire class’s
email addresses from the web site: http://projects.cac.psu.edu/tb/admin/ListEmail.html.
This was the last time I gave the groups formal instructions for their
group meetings; thereafter groups conducted meetings as they saw fit.
Project Assessment
Assistance from the Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning.
One of the more useful forms of assistance from SIIL was the recommendation
that I read the two collaborative learning sourcebooks published by the
National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. From
these books and from articles recommended in various workshops (both SIIL-
and nonSIIL-sponsered), I was able to teach myself a lot about collaborative
learning. But my reading in this area was somewhat hit-and-miss because
I had no guide or index to the literature on collaborative learning. A
potentially useful item for new SIIL fellows might be an annotated bibliography
of articles on collaborative learning.
Two problems for which I wish SIIL could have better prepared me and
my intern were: (a) how to handle situations where a group member fails
to do what is expected from him or her; and (b) what to do when factions
of a group refuse to work with one another. These two problems were mentioned
in passing several times during brown-bag lunches, but my intern and I
could have used a focused workshop on dysfunctional group mediation. Due
to scheduling problems my intern was unable to view any of the PicTel workshops
and therefore received essentially no training in dealing with groups.
Because we were unprepared to deal with group problems and because we could
not easily monitor individuals in a class as large as ours, we barely intervened
during group conflicts. Instead of seeking out a student who failed to
contribute, we told the other group members to continue without the missing
member’s contribution. When factions developed within groups (this happened
twice) we allowed the groups to subdivide. Ideally, I would have preferred
to intervene or have my intern intervene, but with such a large class and
so many other things to monitor and no preparation in group dynamics, I
let the situations resolve themselves.
Students’ Performance in the Course. As planned, I administered
the same multiple-choice test I used last year. I carefully examined the
content of the 40 items on the test and determined that I had lectured
on the content addressed by 21 of the questions. Therefore, as planned,
I had eliminated about 50% of the normal lecture material to allow for
working in groups and for learning how to use the computers. Interestingly,
the students’ performance on the 19 questions I had not lectured
on was not significantly worse than their performance on the 21 questions
I had lectured on (the 5% difference was statistically nonsignificant).
The bad news was that their overall performance (52%) was appreciably worse
than the performance of last year’s class (69%, which is approximately
what my classes usually score on the first exam).
The lower performance is understandable given the extraordinary demands
placed on the students to spend time with their groups and to learn and
use computer technology. Furthermore, at the time of testing most students
had not finished conducting research on the eight questions. Some people
might also argue that a multiple-choice choice may not fully demonstrate
the knowledge acquired by the students.
Students earned two scores on their research projects-a
score from my on their written work and a score from the rest of the group
reflecting their contribution to the group. I assigned up to 50 points
for their written work. Below is a table showing the distribution of scores
across different levels of performance:
Score Meaning No. of students
49-50 Outstanding; unusually complete comprehension 4
46-48 Excellent; demonstrated understanding, not just quoting 29
41-45 Good; answers correct enough and derived from www 58
36-40 OK; either answers correct but not all derived from www or
some mistakes but answers derived from www 54
31-35 Problems; some mistakes and also not all answers derived from
www 6
1-30 Serious problems; clear lack of understanding 0
zero Failed to turn in anything at all 15
166 TOTAL
The 33 students whose work I judged to be excellent or outstanding demonstrated
the kind of learning I was hoping for: going beyond reciting textbook definitions
to communicating deeper levels of comprehension. The 58 students who did
“good” work seemed to understand the material well enough, but
at a level I would judge to be similar to that of students who do well
on multiple-choice tests. The 54 students who did “OK” work would
probably earn a C on a multiple choice test. Their answers were very rote,
sometimes incorrect, and sometimes copied from other students. The 6 students
with “problems” appeared to be academically very weak students.
Students who failed to turn in a project received points for their performance
on the first multiple-choice test and also the points awarded to them by
their group. In this fashion, two of the 15 students who failed to turn
in a project earned a D in the course and six, a C or B. The others earned
an F; this percentage of failing grades is typical for my course.
Students rated the contribution of other members of the group by distributing
points according to the instructions shown in Appendix I. Each student
distributed total points equal to 10 times (N-1), where N = the number
students in the group. Each student’s final contribution rating was equal
to the average of points received from all other members. Once again, spreadsheet
functions on my computer were invaluable in calculating these scores. If
every student in the group distributed his or her points equally, each
student would receive a contribution score of 10 points. A few groups distributed
points nearly equally; most did not. Students’ contribution ratings correlated
only slightly, but statistically significantly, with the scores I assigned
to their written work (r = .23, p < .01).
I was generally satisfied with the procedures for evaluating student
performance. I had been concerned about the amount of time it would take
to evaluate the students’ answers to the research questions, but, once
more, the computer greatly facilitated the process. Nearly all students
sent their answers directly in an email note, which I directed to one of
25 electronic mailboxes. (I converted about 15 documents sent as attachments
to email notes and transferred them to the mailboxes). Using this electronic
format, I was able to (a) jump quickly from a student’s document to another’s
to compare answers, and (b) jump to my spreadsheet to record grades. Another
reason the process was faster than grading hard paper copies is that I
was not writing comments on the students’ papers; instead, I invited students
with questions about their scores to contact me.
The process was not without problems. I required students to submit
a hard paper copy of their papers as a failsafe measure in case they were
unable to send their responses successfully by email. I had to grade about
15 papers from the hard copy. Another difficult, time-consuming process
was checking the world wide web sites to verify that students were deriving
their answers from the sites. Switching to a web-browser to view the sites
was time-consuming enough, but what really slowed me down were cases in
which students typed the web addresses incorrectly. In those cases I had
to figure out what the correct address was supposed to be. In the future
classes I need to make sure that students use the “copy-paste”
function to insure the accuracy of their web addresses.
One of the disappointments for me when I found mistakes in web addresses
was the realization that some students were not doing their own work. Students
were supposed to share web addresses they found, but students were expected
to visit every site themselves and write their own answers to the research
questions. That some were not doing this became clear whenever a student
presented an incorrect web address that was identical to another student’s
(sometimes a student in a different group!) with an answer to the question
that was nearly identical to the other students’. Sometimes when I figured
out what the correct web address was supposed to be, the content of site
had nothing to do with the question, casting further doubt that the student
had actually visited the web site. It seems that collaborative learning,
particularly when students are working under the pressure of deadlines,
invites this kind of plagiarism; I need to work to prevent this from happening
in future classes.
A final, important question about student performance that can be answered
by the data is whether the level of knowledge demonstrated in the research
project is similar to the level of knowledge demonstrated by a multiple
choice test. The correlation between project scores and the four multiple-choice
tests were rs = .24, -.02, -.02, and .33. The correlations with
the first and last test scores were statistically significant (p
< .01), but small, indicating that knowledge demonstrated in the research
project is far from equivalent to knowledge demonstrated on multiple-choice
tests. Interestingly, the correlations between group ratings of contribution
level correlated slightly higher with multiple-choice test scores (rs
= .45, .64, .59, .40, all ps < .01). The group ratings may reflect
how serious and conscientious the students are about academic work in general.
Project Evaluation by the Students in the Course
The repetition of items on the pre- and post-questionnaires allowed
for an assessment of change that might be attributed to the course experience.
The results reported here are based on questionnaires completed by 147
of the students. Paired t-test results are based on 146 degrees
of freedom, and all differences are significant at the p < .001
level unless indicated otherwise.
On a scale of 1-10, level of computer use increased from 4.1 to 6.6
(t = 11.92). On the same scale, reported level of comfort with computers
increased from 4.7 to 6.3 (t = 5.69). From the list of nine possible
uses for computers, the average number of reported activities increased
from 2.4 to 4.3 (t = 15.42). On the pre-questionnaire, 19% of the
students indicated they knew how to connect to a web site, given the address,
whereas 96% of the students reported being able to do this on the post-questionnaire.
On the pre-questionnaire, 37% of the students indicated they had access
to a computer where they lived during the semester; this increased to 47%
near the end of the semester. For the students who did not own or have
access to a computer, 55% were contemplating buying a computer. The reason
given for not buying a computer in almost every case was that computers
are too expensive.
Two items whose responses I tabulated only for the post-questionnaire
concerned frequency of computer use and accessibility of computers in the
campus computer labs. Only 3% said they “seldom” used computers;
54% said they used computers daily and 43% said they used the computer
at least weekly. Many students complained that they had difficulty accessing
a computer on campus; 62% indicated that their use of computers was affected
by accessibility and 20% said their computer use was affected sometimes.
The 18% who said they were not affected cited the ability to work on a
computer at home. Insufficient numbers of computers clearly created frustration
for many students. Given that increasing numbers of faculty are requiring
their students to use computers, the campus will either have to expand
their labs or require students to purchase or lease their own computers
(or both). If we require students connect to the campus access number from
home, we will have to expand greatly the number of dial-in ports (currently
6) and also provide local access to the 50% of our students for whom a
telephone call to the campus is long-distance.
The reactions of the students to the project were assessed by item 17
in the pre-questionnaire and items 9 and 10 in the post-questionnaire.
For item 17, on a scale of 110, students’ average, anticipated interest
level in being assessed with “interactive computer” work was
5.29 (sd = 2.25). The average expressed interest in using the world
wide web for the research project (item 9) on a 1-10 scale was 5.44 (sd
= 2.31) and the interest in group work (item 10) was 4.20 (sd =
2.68). Anticipated interest in the computer work did not predict actual
interest in either computer work (r = .11, ns) or group work (r
= .10, ns) after the project was completed. Therefore, one could
not predict who would like the project from his or her answer to item 17.
However, those who expressed interest in the web searching also tended
to express interest in the group work (r = .53, p < .01). Student
interest in web searching was only slightly related to the grade they received
on the project (r = .23, p < .01) and to the group’s rating
of their contribution (r = .17, p < .05).
Perhaps the most informative evaluations from students were their open-ended
comments solicited at the end of the questionnaire. Many of the students’
reviews contained both positive and critical comments. However, to provide
a simple summary, I sorted the comments into categories according to the
major point the student seemed to be attempting to make. Here are the results,
including actual student comments.
| No. | Type of Comment | Actual Comment |
| 82 | Groups worked poorly | The group project was a waste of time and energy. I learned nothing except that group projects are hard and it is easier to get a finished project when working alone. |
| 25 | Group experience was good | Working in groups was hectic at first and no one wanted to cooperate. Nobody wanted to help you if you were having a problem and weren’t very friendly, wouldn’t take opinions. But, by the end of the project, everyone was getting along, cooperating, and trying to help each other. So, I think this was a positive experience because we’re going to have to deal with people the rest of our lives and you have to adapt and do your best to get along with others, just like at work. |
| 22 | Had trouble with computers or with instructions | I felt a lot of stress while working on this project. I didn’t really understand much of the instructions, nor was I familiar with using computers. We, as a group, were confused about the computers. If the group had known more about computers, it may have been easier. I id find a lot of support with the other group members. They all tried to help when I was confused. In retrospect, if I had a choice whether or not to do that project, I would say no. |
| 12 | Learning computer skills was valuable | The most important aspect of completing projects through groups is communication, which was lacking due to schedule conflicts, computer illiteracy and general laziness. Never having been on the “web” before, I found this very interesting to be involved with. This “education of internet” also helped my other classes by being able to do more thorough research. |
As you can see, the vast majority of comments concerned problems with
groups. People complained that it was too difficult to schedule meetings
with the group, that other people were not doing their fair share, and
that working alone was easier and more productive. Some students’ responses
in this area contained untempered rejection of the entire concept of group
work. On the other hand, many students indicated that the group project
was a good idea and might have worked if some aspects had been different
(e.g., if all of the group members had been more mature and responsible).
Occasionally students offered as suggestions for improving the group work
(a) using smaller groups and (b) allowing students to choose their own
groups.
Providing the students with handouts on directive skills or supportive
skills did not seem to make an impact on how well a group worked together
or any other variable for that matter. Analyses of variance indicted no
significant differences between groups receiving the two handouts on any
of the variables in the study. My guess is that may not have read the handouts
or at least did not read them carefully. I forgot to ask them on the followup
questionnaire whether the handouts were useful. I suspect that these skills
are difficult to learn simply by reading about them; modeling and practicing
the skills may be more effective. At the very least, I plan to find a video
that demonstrate effective and ineffective group work to show at the beginning
of class next year.
My Assessment of the Project
In my opinion, what appeared to enhance the quality of the learning
experience the most for the students the most was their exposure to the
potential of the internet. I do not believe they learned the content from
the first quarter of the course better or more deeply than students in
past years. Even the best answers derived from the internet were indistinguishable
from answers a student might have derived from the textbook. Furthermore,
finding focused answers to specific questions on the internet was terribly
inefficient and time-consuming compared to finding the answers in the textbook.
Surfing the web might be more appropriate for exploring and discovering
unexpected information rather than looking for specific answers to questions.
In any case, the students acquired internet research skills that should
serve them well in other courses. Only a dozen students commented on the
value of learning the internet, but I think the others will realize the
value of what they learned in future classes.
Another innovation that enhanced learning considerably was posting the
multiple-choice tests on the web a few days before the test date. I implemented
this innovation with great trepidation because I feared it might inspire
too much rote memorization. It turned out, however, that students reported
spending significant amounts of time discussing and debating what they
thought the correct answers might be for each question. This is exactly
the kind of intellectual activity I would like to see occurring among my
students. Seeing the questions beforehand did not guarantee a perfect score
on the test. Average scores on the second, third, and fourth exams were
30, 32, and 33 out of 40 points. These averages compare quite favorably-but
are not outrageously higher than-average scores from years past (typically
in the range of 2628 points out of 40). If I make any changes to this
policy next year, it may be the inclusion of many more questions than will
actually appear on the exam. This would make my innovation more similar
to the common practice of making files of past tests available to students.
What lowered the quality of the students’ learning experience more than
anything else was the frustration of coordinating their work efforts with
other group members, particularly members who failed to attend meetings,
to communicate by email, or to do their share of work. Apparently, devoting
some class time to group meetings for the first three weeks of the course
was just not enough. Groups of 6-8 people invariably could not find times
when they could all meet, and this problem was not solved by asynchronous
communication (email) because students picked up email skills too slowly
or just failed to use email. Problems with group work was the most common
student complaint; this problem must be addressed before a project like
this is undertaken again.
The most time-consuming part of this process was maintaining accurate
records. I had to keep track of a lot of different information for a large
number of students. I had to continuously update my records as students
added or dropped the course, acquired email addresses, and so forth.
The most delightful events that came out of the project were spontaneous
communications (some by email, some in person) from students about how
wonderful it was to be able to communicate electronically or to find information
on anything on the world wide web. For example, one of my students who
was struggling with the effects of Lyme disease told me that, out of curiosity,
he did a web search on the disorder and was rewarded with considerable
amounts of new, useful information on his condition.
I would not describe any experiences in the project as “horrific,”
although some were disappointing or discouraging. Perhaps the worst was
hearing from students who were upset because others in the group weren’t
attending meetings or contributing to the group. I felt powerless to help
students with this widespread problem in such a large class. If the class
had been small I might have been able to track down students who were not
contributing, but I had no vehicle for doing this in my auditorium-sized
class.
Overall, I would say that my experience was a positive one. I am not
convinced that the new methods I employed are a better way to learn, but
with some improvements I think the new methods could be better than traditional
lectures. My advice for someone embarking on a project like this one would
be to (a) find a way to encourage students to participate fully in their
groups; (b) cut down on the number and size of groups by making the project
and option for interested students rather than a requirement; and (c) consider
giving students the freedom to choose their own groups and research questions.
Looking to the Future
What’s next? I certainly plan to continue some of the elements
of your project the next time I teach my introductory psychology course.
Faculty at other Penn State locations (Karen Hill at the Delaware County
Campus; Jeanne Amlund at the McKeesport Campus) have been incorporating
the world wide web into their courses, and I think this will become more
common in the near future. Using the web is something I would recommend
to faculty for just about any other course, although I hope our campus
creates more computer labs before everyone starts requiring students to
use the web! 😉 I think using the web for research is broadly transferable
to courses in fields both related and unrelated to psychology. I am not
sure whether it is wise to require group projects from all students in
a very large class like the one I taught. Perhaps projects like the one
I used should be an option for students who want to work this way. Even
if I did not require group research projects, however, I would still teach
and require all of my students to know how to use electronic communication
and how to search the internet for information.
How to get there? The only specific impediment I can see for
being able to
continue my project in my course is an inadequate number of internet
connections for students. The DuBois Campus is doing what it can to increase
the number of computers available in labs, but eventually we might expect
that students purchase or lease their own computers to connect to the internet
off-campus. If off-campus computer use is to be encouraged, we need to
increase the number of dial-in ports accessible through local phone numbers.
We might also need to establish an affordable computer lease/purchase policy
for Penn State students.
Another minor barrier for the project-which may grow as students begin
to work off-campus more often-is the loss of face-to-face contact among
students and between myself and the students. Anticipating this problem,
I have purchased a camera, an audio-equipped CD-ROM player and software
that will allow videoconferencing over the internet. I hope to establish
in the upcoming year computer workstations that will allow students to
videoconference with me (and with other faculty and students who obtain
the necessary equipment). This will allow a more personal form of contact
among internet users when we are working off-campus. Establishing videoconference
workstations will require some financial support from the campus.
This innovation was designed to increase active and interactive learning
in a very large introductory psychology course (150+ students). Students
were assigned to one of 25 groups of 6-8 students. Groups were taught how
to coordinate efforts to search the world wide web to find answers to eight
broad questions on the history of psychology and psychological research
methods. From a common pool of information derived by each group from the
web, students wrote their own papers and mailed them electronically to
the instructor.
Performance on the paper ranged from outstanding or excellent (about
20% of all papers), to good (about 35%), to acceptable (also about 35%).
About 10% of the students turned in a poor paper or failed to turn in a
paper at all. Students also had the opportunity to distribute points to
group members indicating relative contributions to the group work. Performance
on a multiple-choice test (not counted toward the grade) was significantly
worse (17% lower) than performances by classes in previous years, but the
very small correlation (r=.24) between test scores and scores on
the paper indicate that a different kind of learning was taking place with
the research projects. Posting items from the second, third, and fourth
multiple-choice test on the web several days before each test stimulated
extensive discussions and debates among students. Overall performance on
these tests was about 10% higher (30-32 as opposed to 26-28 points out
of 40) than performance by classes in past years.
Feedback from questionnaires administered at the beginning and near
the end of the course indicated large gains in computer and internet literacy.
A number of students emphasized in comments on the second questionnaire
how valuable they found the lessons on the internet. Student comments on
the second questionnaire about problems in the groups (difficulties in
finding out-of-class meeting times; group members not communicating or
working well with others; group members not doing their fair share of work)
predominated about 3:1 over comments about the value of working in groups
(support, meeting new people, learning to resolve problems). Possible solutions
for these problems might include workshops for training instructors in
specific intervention and mediation skills and also workshops for students
where directive and supportive group skills are modeled and practiced.
KEY-WORDS: (PUBLIC INFORMATION)
Identify the tag descriptor that most appropriately identifies your
course.
Course type: mixed
Sequence type: prerequisite course
Class Size: huge (over 150)
Level: freshman/sophomore
Other keywords that help identify the characteristics of the project:
- psychology
- internet
- world wide web
- large class
- collaborative learning
Appendix A
Project Empower
Student Technology Questionnaire
Name _____________________________________
Courses Enrolled for Fall 1996
semester
List: Course Number, Section
& Name of course & Faculty
- _______________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________
1. At what level would you rate
your current use of computers?
Please circle only one number.
1 = the least amount of computer
use; 10 = the highest amount of use
lowest use highest use
1—-2—-3—-4—-5—-6—-7—-8—-9—-10
2. How comfortable are you with
using computers?
Please circle only one number.
1 = the least comfortable; 10
= most comfortable
least comfortable most comfortable
1—-2—-3—-4—-5—-6—-7—-8—-9—-10
3. If asked to today, would you
know how to go into the computer lab, use internet access, and find a particular
web address (for instance, http://cac.psu.edu/~dwm7/eng5o.html)?
a. yes
b. no
4. What do you currently use
computers for?
Circle all that apply
a. word processing
b. statistical analysis
c. multi-media
d. games
e. presentations
f. conferencing (e-mail, chat
rooms, etc.)
g. research
h. internet, WWW (Netscape)
i. others, (please explain)______________________________________
5. If you use any of the above
tools in question #4, how often?
a. daily
b. weekly
c. seldom
- other, (please specify)_______________________________________
- Do you have a preference, if
any, for using MAC or IBM computers?
a. MAC preference
- IBM (compatible) preference
- no preference
- Do you have access to a computer
at your home?- yes
b. no
- Do you use a modem on your computer
system, if you have one at home?- yes
- no
9. If you have access to a computer(s)
at home, what kind is it? Circle all that apply.
- IBM-compatible laptop
- IBM-compatible desktop
- Macintosh desktop
- Macintosh laptop
- does not apply
10. Where is the main place that
you use computers?
- home
- dorm or apartment
- Penn State DuBois Campus
- anywhere (I own a laptop)
- I do not use computers
11
. Do you have a computer where
you live during the semester (at your home, apartment, or dorm?
a. yes
- no
- If yes, does that computer have
software to allow you World Wide Web access?- yes
- no
13. Has your use of computers,
if any, been affected due to accessibility to computers in the Penn State
DuBois Campus computer labs?
a. yes
b. no
c. sometimes
d. does not apply
- What type of computer equipment
would you be interested in receiving instruction on? (i.e., desktop computer,
laptop computer, laser printers, photo scanners)
Please list below:
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
- What items on the list below
would you be interested in learning to use:
Please circle any below:
- World Wide Web
- Web Page Creation (HTML text
editor) - Powerpoint (Clasroom Presentation
Package) - Internet
- Word Processing Packages
- CD ROMS
- Eudora (e-mail)
- h. First Class (conferencing
package, similar to “Pow-Wow”)
- What would you use these technology
tools for? - Circle all that apply.
- Research
- Presentations and class assignments
- Personal use (outside of class)
- Group discussions and conferencing
- other, (please explain)
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
17. How would you feel about
being evaluated through interactive computer instead of a traditional testing
methods (i.e. multiple choice paper exams, essays?
Rank your interest level regarding
evaluation through use of interactive computers. 1 = low interest; 10 high
interest. Please circle only one number.
low interest high interest
1—-2—-3—-4—-5—-6—-7—-8—-9—-10
18. If you have an e-mail address,
please list it below:
_______________________________________________________
Appendix B
Collaborative Learning: The First Day of Class (submitted by Margaret
Whalen) p. 111
from Kadel, S., & Keehner, J. A. (1994). Collaborative Learning:
A Sourcebook for Higher Education, Vol. II. University Park, PA: National
Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
- Introduce self.
- Divide into groups, students introduce selves to each other.
- Group generates 8 questions about the class (e.g., assignments, topics
covered, grading policy). - Instructor hands out syllabus.
- Group notes degree to which syllabus answers questions.
- Groups note questions not answered by syllabus or new questions that
arose upon reading syllabus. - Class reconvenes and discusses with instructor the remaining questions.
Appendix C
Eight Fundamental Questions for WWW Research Project
Definitions of psychology. How has psychology been defined and why
do people have different opinions about what psychology is and what it
should be?
Psychological explanation. What is an adequate psychological explanation?
Fields of psychology. What do psychologists in different fields
do?
History of basic psychology. What historical events influenced the
way basic psychological science is conducted today?
History of applied psychology. What historical events influenced
the way applied psychological science is conducted today?
Experimental research in psychology. How can psychological experiments
add to what we already know by common sense?
Nonexperimental research in psychology. How can nonexperimental
research in psychology add to what we already know by common sense?
Dualisms in psychology. Psychology can be characterized by a number
of dualisms: mind/behavior, internal/external causes, basic/applied goals,
experimental/nonexperimental methods. For any one of these dualisms, why
would a psychologist focus on one side of the dualism? On the other side?
Appendix D
World Wide Web Group Project
Goal:
To locate sites on the World Wide Web (WWW) that help answer eight questions
central to the first unit of the course.
Steps:
(1) Searching. Using Alta Vista or other search engines, find
sites that help answer the eight questions.
(2) Listing. Create an annotated list of the sites that can be
read by a word processor or web browser.
(3) Answering. Write brief answers to the questions, referring
to the information in the web sites, and submit both an electronic copy
by email and a hard copy in person.
Details:
(1) Searching for WWW sites. Students will be taught how to use
WWW search engines in class. Each group will determine how to share the
work involved in locating and annotating sites. Because each group has
about eight members to answer eight questions, one obvious strategy would
be to have each member research one question. Many other alternatives are
possible, however. For example, your group could divide into subgroups
of two, three, or four persons, all of whom research the same two, three,
or four questions. Class time will be provided for groups to meet to decide
how to share the workload.
However a group decides to divide the search task, all group members
should keep each other posted regularly on how the search process is going.
This can be done by email or, possibly, directly from the web browser.
Eventually, when the First Class communication software is installed, groups
will be able to post notes to their group’s folder for a continuous record
of discussion. I expect group members to help individuals who are having
difficulties.
Your group will decide how often to meet in person in addition to electronic
conferencing. I will provide some class time for in-person group meetings
during the first three weeks of the course. After that you must arrange
for additional in-person group meetings outside of class.
(2) Creating an annotated list of sites. Through electronic and/or
in-person discussions, your group will settle upon a final list of sites
relevant to the eight questions. You must have at least one site per question,
but listing more than one site reflects industriousness and may help your
grade for the project. Don’t overdo though; listing too many sites will
be too much work for your group and for those of us who will read your
list.
To annotate means to provide a very brief description of what is found
at the site. The descriptions should be just long enough to tell a reader
what can be found at the site. Two to four sentences will often be sufficient.
Again, the group will decide who writes these descriptions. You might decide
to divide the writing evenly, or you might decide that those who spent
less time searching for sites will do more writing, or whatever your group
wants to do.
The end result of the writing will be a single document that is the
product of the entire group’s searching and writing. The document should
be produced with a word processor such as Microsoft Word, WordPerfect,
or Clarisworks, all which exist in both Macintosh and IBM-compatible versions.
KEEP THE DOCUMENT SIMPLE: do not use special characters, fonts, boldface,
italics, underlining, centering, or tab stops. These features do not always
translate well when documents are emailed or read by a word-processor different
from the one used to create the document. Save the document as a plain
text file (all word-processors have this capability).
Only one copy of your groups’s annotated list needs to be emailed to
the instructor. These lists will be collated and published on the WWW as
our class’s contribution to future introductory psychology classes.
Please understand that, although your group’s list is a course requirement,
your grade will not be based on the annotated list per se. Rather, each
individual student’s answers to the eight questions will determine his
or her grade.
(3) Answering the questions. Your answers to the eight questions
should be produced electronically so that you can email your answers to
the instructor (see instructions about creating a plain text document above).
You should also print out a hard copy to deliver in person. Please turn
in all eight answers at the same time in one document.
Your answers should be only long enough to address each question. Remember,
I must read nearly 200 of these papers. None of the questions has just
one absolutely correct answer. Some answers to the questions can be found
in our textbook and in my lectures, but your answers should refer to the
information in the sites your group located. You will be graded on the
thoughtfulness of your answers.
Appendix E
Useful Information about Working in Groups
Because I am requiring you to work in groups, I feel an obligation to
teach you some skills that will help your group function well. More than
two dozen such skills exist, but many of these fall into one of two general
areas, namely,
Group Management or Directive Skills, and
Interpersonal or Supportive Skills.
Group management skills involve organizing and coordinating activities
that enable tasks to get completed on time. Interpersonal skills involve
creating and maintaining smooth, effective, harmonious working relationships
that lead to satisfaction and good morale. Every one of you has at least
some directive and supportive skills. Depending on your past experiences,
your group members will probably be at different skill levels. For those
of you with well-developed skills, this document will simply remind you
about what you already know. For others, it will help you develop higher
levels of skill.
Because you already have considerable work to do on the project itself,
I am not presenting here information on both directive and supportive skills.
Rather, for half the groups in this class, the rest of this document contains
information on directive skills. For the other half of the groups, the
remainder of this document contains information on relationship skills.
When this unit is over and the projects have been completed I will be surveying
you to see how helpful this information was to you.
Your group, group [letter of group inserted here], is receiving information
about [either directive or supportive inserted here] skills.
Appendix F
Directive Skills
The heart of directive skills is clear organization. This involves identifying
the tasks that must be completed to achieve the group’s goal, developing
a timeline for completion of the tasks, assigning the tasks to group members,
and keeping a progress chart.
Set goal. This has been done for you already. The goal is stated
in the Project Description: To locate sites on the World Wide Web (WWW)
that help answer eight questions central to the first unit of the course.
Identify broad steps to goal. This also has been done for you
already. The main steps for accomplishing your goal as stated in the Project
Description are (1) searching for www sites, (2) creating an annotated
list of the www sites, and (3) writing and submitting answers to the eight
questions based on information in the www sites.
Identify and assign tasks for each step. Your group must determine
what tasks need to be accomplished and who will accomplish them. Some of
the tasks include:
identifying search keywords for each question
trying the keywords in actual www searches
recording www site addresses of possibly relevant sites
deciding whether recorded sites are sufficient to answer questions
identifying and trying new keywords, if necessary
settling upon a final list of sites
writing an annotation for each site
considering possible answers to questions based on www information
writing answers to the questions
Except for the last task, which must be done individually, the
other tasks can be done by the group as a whole, by subgroups, or by individuals
working alone. For example, the entire group can discuss search keywords
for all eight questions, or the questions can be divided among group members,
each of whom will identify keywords for his or her own question(s). Group
members can surf the www individually or in pairs or larger groups (limited
only by how many people can huddle around the computer screen).
In today’s meeting you should make some progress on identifying and
assigning tasks. This process should be completed during Thursday’s meeting.
Get the task assignments in writing to make sure every group member knows
his or her responsibilities.
Create a timeline and chart progress. Your timeline should include
dates by which you expect to accomplish the tasks, scheduled group meetings
(with stated purpose of each meeting), and outcomes (what was accomplished,
what needs to be done). This timeline is again something the group must
devise around the tasks you identify, but it might look something like
the following:
Task Persons involved Date Outcome
Choose leader whole group 9/3 Brenda offers to lead group; group agrees
Begin to identify
tasks whole group 9/3 Each member chooses a question to research. Brenda
asks everyone to make a list by 9/5
Complete list of
tasks whole group 9/5 Group settles on list; Joe offers to type list
and make copy for everyone
Get everyone
familiarized with
Netscape CyberSam 9/6&9 Cybersam demonstrates Netscape to novices
in group during common hours
Identify search
keywords whole group 9/10 Following list of keywords identified: ……
Report on initial
searches whole group 9/12 At least two good sites located for all but
last question
This timeline can be modified if absolutely necessary, but you should
strive to keep on track as much as possible. This brings us to the next
directive skill.
Keep people on track. Some person or persons need to make sure
tasks are getting accomplished. Part of this involves keeping a progress
chart like the one above and reminding the group where they stand. It also
involves bringing people back to the purpose of meetings if someone should
go off on a tangents.
Trouble-shooting. Finally, if a problem arises that blocks
group progress, possible solutions need to be identified and tried. For
example, if a group member is having trouble sending email, some person
or persons will attempt to identify and solve the problem.Appendix G
Supportive Skills
Supportive skills often involve nonverbal behavior such as facial expression,
tone of voice, and body language. These nonverbal behaviors can be demonstrated
more easily from an actual or videotaped group interaction than from a
written description such as this one. Nonetheless, if you read the following
descriptions of supportive skills carefully you will probably start spotting
them in actual group meetings. Your group might even have someone (this
role could be rotated) who observes and takes notes on when supportive
skills were and were not demonstrated in a meeting.
Know your group members as persons. Everyone–even introverts–want
to be known by others. Make an effort to get to know the people in your
group, beginning with everyone’s name. One’s name is usually music to one’s
ears, so address everyone by their name whenever possible.
Bad: “Hey you, did you find any web sites on experiments?”
Good: “Jim, did you find any web sites on experiments?”
Before your group does anything else, I suggest that everyone introduces
themselves and tells the group something about themselves they would like
the group to know.
Participate openly. Complete participation from all group members
is essential to good group functioning. However, people often feel so uncertain
about the worth of their ideas that they are reluctant to share them openly
with the group. One way to get people participating is to talk openly yourself.
By opening up to the group you are providing a model of participation for
others to follow. But don’t do all the talking; invite others to react
to what you’ve said.
Bad: (avoiding eye contact and saying nothing)
Bad: (talking nonstop so others can’t get a word in edgewise)
Good: “I think each of us should do web searches on two questions.
What do you think, Jill?”
Admit vulnerabilities. If you are willing to admit doubts, uncertainty,
confusion, and frustration, this gives permission to others to do the same.
It can be quite a relief to find out that you are not the only person in
the group with negative feelings. Ideally, someone will eventually help
those with problems toward resolutions.
Bad: “Yeah, I found a web site that answers question four.”
Good: “I’m not sure what question four is really asking. I found
a site with the keyword for that question but I don’t know if it is a good
answer.”
Maintain optimism. One can go overboard on sharing negative feelings
to a point where the entire group wallows in self-pity. Recognize and validate
negative feelings, but express hope and optimism about the situation.
Bad: “We don’t have any sites for half the questions. We’re never
gonna get them done and we’re all going to flunk this project.”
Good: “It’s been frustrating looking so long without results for
the last four questions. But we have the first four done, and I know we
are just as far along as most of the other groups.”
Suggest rather than order. To get things accomplished, some group
leaders attempt to impose their own decisions on the group. This can save
time but it can also cause resentments. Rephrasing an order as a suggestion
can make it more acceptable. Tone of voice is important here: A suggestion
directed with a stern, demanding voice can come across as an order.
Bad: “I say we meet at lunchtime this Friday.”
Good: “How about if we meet at lunchtime this Friday?”
Listen attentively. This is one of the most important but one
of the most difficult supportive skills. We tend to get so caught up in
our own thoughts and what we want to say that we don’t give full attention
to others who are talking. An attentive listener makes eye contact, focuses
on the speaker, and refrains from interrupting and from judging. An attentive
listener picks up feeling tones (anger, irritation, excitement, boredom,
etc.) as well as the content of the message. An attentive listener can
rephrase in his or her own words what was said and also identify what the
speaker is feeling.
Bad: “Huh?”
Good: “What I hear you saying, Fran, is that you are worried that
the first Wundt web site has too many irrelevant details to use as an answer
to the question.”
Check and clarify. If, while listening attentively, you are not
sure what someone meant, check to see if you got the point by restating
it in your own words (see example above). Or, simply ask for clarification.
An observant person will also notice when other members of the group are
not getting something and will ask them if they need the speaker to clarify.
Bad: “I know what you mean” [when person really doesn’t].
Good: “Pat, are you saying the site doesn’t exist any more or that
you can’t get through to the address now?”
Criticize ideas, not people. When you do not like what someone
says, try to focus criticism on the idea rather than the person. If possible,
try to find and mention a good intention behind the idea.
Bad: “You are really ignorant for expecting us to have this ready
by Friday.”
Good: “I know you are trying to make sure we get this done
on time, Sandy, but I don’t think we can get to the computer lab often
enough to finish it by Friday.”Appendix H
More Details About Expectations for the PSY
2 WWW Project
The following is a list of members of your
group, group [letter of group inserted here]:
[list of members' names and email addresses
inserted here]
At this point, everyone should have received
for your WWW research project the following documents:
Name of the Document
Nature of Document
World Wide Web Group Project general description
of the project
Eight Fundamental Questions the list of eight
questions you must
for WWW Research Project answer for your project
Useful Information about brief description
of directive and
Working in Groups supportive skills for group
work, and a detailed description of [insert either directive or
supportive here] skills whose practice may help your group.
The remainder of this document spells out my
expectations for how your research project should proceed, what it should
look like, and how it will be graded.
Milestones and Deadlines
A milestone is an event that marks a
certain level of progress toward your final goal. Significant milestones
for your group would include things like
reaching a decision about how to divide up
the work,
each member successfully using the computer
for WWW searching and email,
actually finding some WWW sites related to
each of the eight questions,
reaching a decision about which sites to include
on the group's final list,
writing annotated descriptions for each site
on the list, and
writing and turning in your answers to the
eight questions.
Milestones are sometimes associated with deadlines--dates
by which we expect to achieve the milestone. Your group needs to decide
whether you want to chart your progress with milestones at all, and, if
you do, how many of these you want to attach to deadlines and when the
deadlines will be. As your instructor, I am expecting achievement of only
two milestones by specific dates.
First, by TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 (the
class after our exam on this section), I expect your group to have at least
one WWW site address relevant to each of the eight questions. This set
of at least eight addresses don't have to be wonderful, great sources of
information, they don't have to be on your final list, and they don't have
to be annotated. I simply want your group to have identified eight sites
by the 17th. To show me that you have accomplished this, one person from
your group will need to send me an email with the list of WWW site addresses.
The email will look something like this (turn page):
Dear Dr. Johnson,
Hear are eight sites that Group X found for
the eight questions.
1. http://psycho.uid.org/natpsy.html
2. http://www.harvard.edu/bilbo/courses/philsci/explan.html
3. http://www.apa.org/info/disciplines/list.html
4. http://knights.who.say.nee.org/inf/psy/basic.html
5. http://kinghts.who.say.nee.org/inf/psy/applied.html
6. http://www.ucsd.edu/dept/psy/courses/methods/p101.html
7. http://www.freud.org/cases/art/method.html
8. http://www.tao.org/thetwo.html
Thank You,
J.B. Goode, for Group X
The second milestone is the actual completion
of your project. Each person in the group is to both email and turn
in a paper copy of his or her project. The email and paper should look
exactly the same, because copies of any emails you send or receive that
you save on your diskette can be easily printed. The due date for the finished
project is THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3. It might seem strange that you will
be working on material from the first part of the course three weeks after
the test and three weeks into the second part of the course. That's because
it is a little strange to do things this way. But I want to make absolutely
sure that you have sufficient time to construct a project that you are
satisfied with and that we allow time to overcome the inevitable computer
glitches and other problems that will crop up.
What Your Final Product Should
Look Like
Remember that the project you turn in will
have two parts. The first will be a set of annotated WWW site addresses.
You will decide upon this list and write the annotations (short descriptions)
as a group, so the first part of what you turn in will look identical
for everyone in your group. The second part will contain your answers
to the eight questions derived from the WWW sites.
Your paper will look something like this:
LIST OF ANNOTATED WWW SITES FOR GROUP X
1. http://psycho.uid.org/natpsy.html. This
site was created by a society of professional psychologists who did a survey
of the way different introductory psychology textbooks. They found over
a dozen different definitions.
2. http://www.harvard.edu/bilbo/courses/philsci/explan.html.
This site was created by a professor who teaches the philosophy of science
at Harvard Univeristy. He proposes that a complete psychological explanation
must use all four types of cause described by Aristotle.
[...and so forth, annotating through your last
site.]
ANSWERS TO THE EIGHT QUESTIONS
1. According to the web site maintained by
the National Organization of Psychologists (http://psycho.uid.org/natpsy.html),
almost everyone defines psychology as the scientific study of behavior,
but some people also define it as the study of mind or experience. People
who define psychology only as the science of behavior want psychology to
be as objective and rigourous as other hard sciences like physics and chemistry.
People who also include the study of mind in the definition either don't
worry so much about whether psychology is a science or an art or just an
activity, or else they believe that science doesn't have to deal only with
physical, observable objects.
[...and so forth, providing short answers to
the remaining seven questions]
How Projects Will Be Graded
The project is worth 60 points: up to 50 points
from the instructor's evaluation of the quality of your answers to the
eight questions, and up to 10 points from the rest of your group's evaluation
of your contribution to the project.
My evaluation is based on my judgment of whether
your eight answers are coherent responses to the questions and also were
derived from the information in the WWW site you listed. I am much more
concerned in your ability to apply something at least half-way sensible
from a WWW information source than in your ability to repeat exactly what
is in the textbook or Dr. Johnson said in class. All of these questions
have many acceptable answers, not just one correct answer. If you do a
good job you will earn up to 6 points per question times 8 questions equals
48 points. I'll add a couple of extra points to really outstanding work.
I want to emphasize that if the group fails
to find and/or annotate WWW sites for all questions because one or two
members failed to complete their assigned tasks, the whole group will not
lose all their points for a question because of the failings of those individuals.
If you cannot answer one of the questions from a WWW site because somebody
didn't do his or her job, write an answer using another source such as
the textbook or another psychology book or magazine, and explain why the
group had no WWW site for a particular question. I am hoping this will
not happen at all, for if a WWW site for a particular question isn't located
by the first milestone deadline, maybe other group members need to get
involved.
The ten remaining points represent the consensus
of what the group thinks of your contributions to the group work. The group
evaluation will work like this. Each person will have 10 X (the number
of people in the group minus one) to distribute as equally or unequally
as he or she wishes. For example, in a group of eight each person will
get 10 X (8-1) = 70 points to distribute. In a group of six, each person
will get 10 X (6-1) = 50 points to distribute. If you think each person
contributed exactly equally to the group you would simply divide your points
evenly, giving ten points to each person. However, if you thought someone
contributed far more than average and another person far less, you might
give the first person 15 points and the second, 5. Your final score out
of ten is simply the average number of points you receive from the rest
of the group. For example, if two people gave you a 10 and five others,
a 9, this adds up to 65 points, which when divided by 7 to give the average,
is about 9.4. We'll round fractions of at least .5 up to the next whole
number and fractions less than .5 down to the next whole number. So this
person would have earned a 9 for the group contribution.
To get people to think carefully about distributing
their points, they will have to fill out a checksheet for each person where
they check off both positive and negative contributions made by the person.
Positive contributions include things like asking for or giving appropriate
information, helping others, keeping meetings running on time, and resolving
conflicts. Negative contributions include things like not showing up for
meetings, not following through on assignments, interrupting too often,
putting people down, and getting the group sidetracked. These are just
from the longer total list of positive and negative contributions. After
placing checkmarks next to all positive and negative items that are very
characteristic of the person being rated, the rater will be in a better
position to decide whether the person should receive less than average,
average, or a greater than average number of points.
Appendix I
Directions for rating members of your group:
First, find your group. You will be rating only the students
in your own group. Find your name and circle it. In the example below,
Ima Saint is doing the ratings so she has circled her name. You will not
assign any points to yourself. Notice that Ima has left the box for points
next to her name blank.
Next, consider whether a group member showed any of the positive or
negative group behaviors listed in the vertical columns. Place a checkmark
in each box you think describes that person’s behavior. In the example
below, Ima thought Joe Blow tended to not show up for meetings, not do
the work expected of him, and didn’t respect group members, so she checked
those boxes. The purpose of this checking is to focus your memory on how
positive or negative each group member’s behavior was to help you decide
how many points to give him or her. No student will see the individual
marks you give out-only the average number of points from the entire group.
If you remember other positive or negative things about the person you
may use those thoughts to help you decide how many points to give. Notice
that Ima gave Joe Blow only 2 points.
The total number of points you give should add up to the number in the
box next to “Should add up to.” This number will be (the number
of people in your group minus one) times ten. There are eight people in
Ima’s group, so her point total must add up to 70.
If you remember someone being in your group but the person’s name is
not listed, this is because they dropped out of the course.
Appendix J
Project Empower
Student Technology Followup
Questionnaire
Name _____________________________________
These questions were selected
from the questionnaire you took prior to the start of the course. At the
end of the questionnaire you also have an opportunity to say anything you
like about the World Wide Web group research project.
1. At what level would you rate
your current use of computers?
Please circle only one number.
1 = the least amount of computer
use; 10 = the highest amount of use
lowest use highest use
1—-2—-3—-4—-5—-6—-7—-8—-9—-10
2. How comfortable are you with
using computers?
Please circle only one number.
1 = the least comfortable; 10
= most comfortable
least comfortable most comfortable
1—-2—-3—-4—-5—-6—-7—-8—-9—-10
3. If asked to today, would you
know how to go into the computer lab, use internet access, and find a particular
web address (for instance, http://cac.psu.edu/~dwm7/eng5o.html)?
a. yes
b. no
4. What do you currently use
computers for?
Circle all that apply
a. word processing
b. statistical analysis
c. multi-media
d. games
e. presentations
f. conferencing (e-mail, chat
rooms, etc.)
g. research
h. internet, WWW (Netscape)
i. others, (please explain)______________________________________
5. If you use any of the above
tools in question #4, how often?
a. daily
b. weekly
c. seldom
d. other, (please specify)_______________________________________
6. Do you have access to a computer
where you live during the semester (at your home, apartment, or dorm?
a. yes
b. no
7. Has your use of computers,
if any, been affected due to accessibility to computers in the Penn State
DuBois Campus computer labs?
a. yes
b. no
c. sometimes
d. does not apply
Please explain your answer to
number seven.
8. If you do not own or have
access to a computer where you live during the semester, are you thinking
about buying your own computer?
a. I already own or have access
to a computer where I live.
b. Yes, I am thinking about buying
my own computer.
c. No, I am not thinking about
buying my own computer.
Please explain your answer to
number eight.
9. How did you feel about being
evaluated for the first part of the course through a paper based on your
searching the world wide web for information instead of a traditional multiple
choice exam?
Rate your interest in the WWW
searching aspect of the project. 1 = low interest in WWW searching compared
to a multiple choice exam; 10 high interest in WWW searching compared to
a multiple choice exam.
low interest high interest
1—-2—-3—-4—-5—-6—-7—-8—-9—-10
10. How did you feel about working
in a group on the research project in contrast to doing your own work all
by yourself?
Rate your interest in the group
work aspect of the project. 1 = low interest in group work compared to
working by myself; 10 high interest in group work compared to working by
myself.
low interest high interest
1—-2—-3—-4—-5—-6—-7—-8—-9—-10
What else would you like to say
about the group research project for the first part of the course? (Note:
your candid, honest comments are appreciated and will in no way affect
your grade for the course.)