Project-based learning with the world wide web: A qualitative study of resource integration

  • Susan M. LandEmail author
  • Barbara A. Greene


The purpose of this study was to investigate the process used by learners to seek, locate, and integrate information resources for use in a project-based environment. Four cases (n=9) were analyzed from an introductory educational technology course during a unit on telecommunications. Participants were asked to generate projects for integrating the Internet into the curriculum. Within this project-based context, learners searched for information resources that would accompany their project ideas. Three major findings related to use of hypermedia systems during project-based learning are discussed: (a) progressing from data-driven to goal-driven approaches was critical to developing coherent project ideas; (b) consolidation of information resources with project methods and rationales was challenging for learners, often resulting in topic “drifts” or idea simplification; and (c) metacognitive, domain, and system knowledge appeared critical to achieving coherence in project development. Implications related to the role of instructional scaffolding in encouraging goal-driven and metacognitive processing during open-ended learning are considered.


Coherence Qualitative Study Educational Technology Project Development Project Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, P.A., & Judy, J. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance.Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S.A., Bowdish, B.E., & Lawless, K.A. (1997). Hypermedia navigation: Profiles of hypermedia users.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.H. Markman (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3, Cognitive development (pp. 177–266). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1988). Situated cognition of learning.Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, C-K, & McDaniel, E.D. (1995). Information search strategies in loosely structured settings.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(1), 95–107.Google Scholar
  8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19, 2–10.Google Scholar
  9. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon H.A. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd Ed). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Garner R., & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gick, M.L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies.Educational Psychologist, 21, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, B.A. (1995). Comprehension of text in an unfamiliar domain: Effects of instruction that provides either domain or strategy knowledge.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry.ECTJ, 30(4), 233–252.Google Scholar
  14. Hannafin, M., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in an open-ended learning environment: Assumptions, methods, and implications.Educational Technology, 34(8), 48–55.Google Scholar
  15. Hannafin, M.J., & Land, S.M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments.Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, J.R., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hmelo, C. (1995). Problem-based learning: Development of knowledge and reasoning strategies. In, J.D. Moore and J.F. Lehman (Eds.),Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 403–408). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, S.L., Krajcik, J., and Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments.Proceedings of CHI '98 (pp. 187–194). Los Angeles: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J. (1998). A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lajoie, S.P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as Cognitive Tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Land, S.M. (1995).The process of developing theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.Google Scholar
  23. Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lincoln, Y., & Guba E. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Lyons, D., Hoffman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997).An investigation of the use of the World Wide Web for online inquiry in a science classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  27. Mayer, R.E. (1989). Models for understanding.Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
  28. Merriam, S. (1988).Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Moore, P. (1995). Information problem solving: A wider view of library skills.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oliver, K. (1999).A case study of student use of computer tools in support of open-ended problem-solving with hypermedia resources. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  31. Pea, R.D., (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed intelligence (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Pea, R.D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perkins, D. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed intelligence (pp. 89–109). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  34. Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving.Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129–143.Google Scholar
  35. Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H-K, and Soloway, E. (1998). Symphony: A case study in extending learner-centered design through process space analysis. Available on-line at: Scholar
  36. Roth, W-M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: The case of Interactive Physics™.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329–347.Google Scholar
  37. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schank, R., & Cleave, J. (1995). Natural learning, natural teaching: Changing human memory. In H. Morowitz and J. Singer, (Eds.),The mind, the brain, and complex adaptive systems (pp. 175–202). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  39. Schön, D.A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II (pp. 183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Skon, L., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1981). Cooperative peer interaction versus individual competition and individualistic efforts: Effects of the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 83–92.Google Scholar
  42. Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.Educational Technology, 5, 24–33.Google Scholar
  43. Stake, R.E. (1995).The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Wallace, R., & Kupperman, J. (1997).On-line search in the science classroom: Benefits and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  45. Yin, R. (1994).Case study research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.the Instructional Systems Program at The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of Oklahoma's Instructional Psychology and Technology ProgramUSA

Personalised recommendations