Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Project-based pedagogy for the facilitation of webpage design

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 30 June 2016

Abstract

Real issues of web design and development include many problem-solving tasks. There are, however, some inadequacies associated with the implementation of appropriate pedagogy for organised and structured instruction that supports the rational problem-solving paradigm. The purpose of this article is to report on a study for the design and implementation of an Instructional Web Design Programme (IWDP) with methodology-specific guidelines in an information systems design context. A second purpose is to discuss the pedagogy developed within the IWDP and its effects on promoting technological problem solving of learners in the project-based classroom. A qualitative, action-research approach was the basis for this study. The sample consisted of 17 learners at an institution of higher education. The researchers used a focus group interview, journals and essays to observe learners’ behaviour, to analyse their project designs and to assess their opinions and experiences with regard to the IWDP. An organised and structured instructional environment within the IWDP helped the teacher to promote technological problem solving. The teacher and learners acknowledged the components of the programme (for example, assessment criteria, range statements, performance indicators, pre-defined learner tasks and activities) in the project-based classroom. Practical and cognitive apprenticeship and experiential and situated learning were used to accommodate the problem-solving needs of learners. Learners indicated a need for a variety of tools and expert guidance in a peer-based collaborative learning environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, D. E., Donham, R. S., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ankiewicz, P. (2003). Technology education at school: Illusion or reality? Inaugural address. Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankiewicz, P. (2015).’n Teoretiese besinning oor die implikasies van die filosofie van tegnologie vir kriteria vir vakkurrikulumontwikkeling en –evaluering. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie, 34(1), Art. #1170, 7 pages. doi:10.4102/satnt.v34i1.1170.

  • Ankiewicz, P. J., & De Swardt, A. E. (2002). Aspects to be taken into account when compiling a learning programme to support effective facilitation of technology education. In National Conference for Technology Teachers, Port Natal School, Durban, conference proceedings, pp 76–81, 30 September–1 October 2002.

  • Ankiewicz, P., De Swardt, A. E., & Stark, R. (2000). Principles, methods and techniques of technology education I. Auckland Park: Rand Afrikaans University, RAU College for Education and Health (RAUCEH).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arzarello, F., Chiappini, G. P., Lemut, E., Marara, N., & Pellery, M. (1993). Learning programming as a cognitive apprenticeship through conflicts. In E. Lemut, B. Du Boulay, & G. Dettori (Eds.), Cognitive models and intelligent environments for learning models (pp. 284–297). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Authority, S. A. Q. (1997). The South African Qualifications Authority Bulletin, Vol. 1(1): May-June. Pretoria: Office of the Executive Officer, SAQA.

  • Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (1996). Information systems development methodologies: Tools and techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balfanz, R. (1991). Local knowledge, academic skills, and individual productivity: An alternative view. Educational Policy, 5(4), 341–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, F., & Williams, J. (2013). International perspectives on technology education. In O.-J. Gwyneth (Ed.), Debates in design and technology education. Debates in subject teaching (pp. 31–48). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information system research. Journal of Information Technology, 11, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we like? In M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, B. K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills: A handbook for secondary school teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, M. (1990). The creative mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, S. M., Lehrer, R., Connell, T., & Erickson, J. (1992). Learning by hypermedia design: Issues of assessment and implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, J., Kolp, M., & Mylopoulos, J. (2002). Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: The Tropos project. Information Systems, 27(6), 36–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavan, S. (2007). Networking with other parties—Developing strategic partnerships. In Conference proceedings: International conference in educator lifelong learning, KwaZulu-Natal Education, Durban, South Africa.

  • Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, J. (1995). The theory of learning strategies. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1986). CoRT thinking. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Swardt, E., Ankiewicz, P., & Gross, E. (2010). Implementing a technology learning programme in a school for learners with special educational needs: A case study. Acta Academica, 42(3), 230–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, pp. 51–76.

  • Department of Education. (1997). Outcomes based education in South Africa. Pretoria: DoE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover, A. (1983). Computers and the gifted: Past, present and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(2), 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, J. S., & Cunnigham, D. J. (1997). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in education, communication, and technology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (1996). Strategies for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmer, R. (1998). Probing intentions of design and technology students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8, 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, D. (1992). Information systems requirements: Determination and analysis. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogarty, R., & McTighe, J. (1993). Educating teachers for higher order thinking: The three-story intellect. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) and Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development (GICD). (1999). Technology draft progress map. Pretoria.

  • Givens, N., & Barlex, D. (2001). The role of published material in curriculum development and implementation for secondary school design and technology in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 137–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, G. (1998). The essence of structured systems analysis techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., & Parker, J. (2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The virtual classroom: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association. (ITEA). (1997). Standards for technology education. First draft. Blacksburg, Va: Virginia Tech.

  • Jakovljevic, M. (2002). An instructional model for teaching complex thinking through web page design. DEd thesis. Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South Africa.

  • Jakovljevic, M., Ankiewicz, P., De Swardt, A. E., & Gross, E. (2004). A synergy between the technological process and a methodology for web design: Implications for technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 261–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D. (1997). Learning technological concepts and developing intellectual skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (1991). Learning together and learning alone (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., & Thomas, R. (1992). Technology education and the cognitive revolution. The Technology Teacher, 51(4), 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mind tools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. A. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for assessing, conveying and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin, V. (2013). The Mediational Perspective on Digital Technology: Understanding the Interplay between Technology, Mind and Action. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital technology research (pp. 203–213). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N. (1992). Foundations of behavioural research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, F. R., Hwang, G. J., Chen, S. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2012). A cognitive apprenticeship approach to facilitating web-based collaborative problem solving. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 319–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lautenbach, G. (2010). Expansive learning cycles: Lecturers using educational technologies for teaching and learning. South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(5), 699–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lautenbach, G. (2014). A theoretically driven teaching and research framework: Learning technologies and educational practice. Educational Studies, 40(4), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Renata, T. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in education research. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: patterns of hypermedia design. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Mabrito, M. (1992). Computer-mediated communication and high apprehensive writers: Rethinking the collaborative process. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 55(4), 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magadla, L. (1996). Constructivism: A practitioner’s perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., & Suthor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem-solving approach in technology education. A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1994). Knowledge as design: A handbook for critical and creative discussions across the curriculum. Pacific Grove: Critical thinking Press and Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfleeger, S. L. (2001). Software Engineering: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, R. S. (2005). Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (6th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, K., Ankiewicz, P., & De Swardt, A. E. (2003). The essential features of technology and technology education: A conceptual framework for the development of OBE (Outcomes-Based Education) related programmes in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P. (2013). Problem-based learning. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol1_issue6/Epistemic_Games.pdf. Assessed April 2010.

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46, 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, P. R. J. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, J. (1995). Technology discussion in the classroom. In G. A. Edmision (Ed.), Delivery systems: Instructional strategies for technology education. Alexandria, VA: ITEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kinzie, J., & Simmonds, A. (1998). Creating learning centred classrooms. What does learning theory have to say? In Eric digest, ECO-HE Higher Education Report, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 98–104

  • Van Niekerk, E., Ankiewicz, P., & De Swardt, E. (2010). A process-based assessment framework for technology education: A case study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, G. H. I. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Prof. Estelle de Swardt, for her assistance with the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Education (APK Campus), University of Johannesburg, PO Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa

    Maria Jakovljevic & Piet Ankiewicz

Authors
  1. Maria Jakovljevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Piet Ankiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piet Ankiewicz.

Additional information

Maria Jakovljevic is a former doctoral student at University of Johannesburg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jakovljevic, M., Ankiewicz, P. Project-based pedagogy for the facilitation of webpage design. Int J Technol Des Educ 26, 225–242 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9312-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9312-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation