Enabling project-based learning in WBT systems.

It is our experience that many Web-based training (WBT) systems do not consider the latest advances in teaching or learning paradigms--they simply reflect Web technology. We believe that such a technical approach to building WBT systems has a number of drawbacks, since WBT systems are primarily about teaching and learning, rather than about technology. Thus, WBT systems should actually combine conventional and innovative tools compatible with current Web technology to support well-known, well-tested techniques, and also to enable implementation of new and innovative teaching and learning paradigms in a Web-based environment. Therefore, we built an innovative WBT system called WBT-Master as a Web-based platform supporting a wide range of different teaching and learning paradigms. In this paper, we present a WBT-Master tool that implements the well-known and highly accepted project-based learning paradigm. Further, we present results of the application of this tool in conducting a project-oriented software engineering course attended by more than 200 university students. We also present evaluations of applying WBT-Master within a corporate environment.

INTRODUCTION

Today, many organizations apply Web-Based Training (WBT) systems extensively to improve their teaching, learning, and training practices. Universities, faculties, research departments, and other higher education facilities usually offer some WBT courses for their students to supplement or sometimes completely replace their classroom courses. A similar situation can be observed in corporate environments where WBT systems usually provide online training material for on-demand Web based training of the work force.

Regardless of the environment, the ultimate goal of WBT applications is always to achieve improvements in teaching people by replacing or supplementing more traditional methods of teaching. To achieve this goal, WBT systems primarily need to support current classroom teaching and learning paradigms in a Web-based environment. Secondly, WBT systems should adapt and extend these paradigms to meet the challenges of the new technology. Finally, WBT systems should support new and innovative teaching and learning paradigms that result from applying those new technologies for teaching and learning. In all cases, the focus of WBT systems lies in supporting a wide range of current, advanced, and innovative teaching, learning, and training paradigms on the Web.

However, the current state of WBT systems shows a different picture. Usually, WBT systems do not consider recent advancements in teaching or learning paradigms. Rather these systems only reflect the current Web technology. Technically, current WBT systems usually support the so-called online course model. According to this model, WBT systems provide remote access to courseware "anytime anywhere" by means of Web technologies. Usually, courseware in WBT systems is prepared as a number of Web pages interrelated by means of hyperlinks into a navigable structure. Teachers prepare such courseware and publish it on WBT systems; learners may then access and browse the courseware by using their favorite Web browser.

Additionally, WBT systems offer Web-based discussion boards, chat rooms, and similar Web communication tools to somewhat improve the teaching and learning experience of participants of Web-based training. In any case, authoring, browsing of Web pages, or using simple Web communication tools may hardly be seen as an implementation of any teaching or learning paradigm, and especially not of any that are advanced or innovative.

Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the primary goal of WBT systems should be to combine conventional and innovative tools compatible with the current Web technology to support well-known, well-tested techniques, and further to enable implementation of new and innovative teaching and learning paradigms in a Web-based environment.

Therefore, we implemented a novel WBT system, which we called WBT-Master (Helic, Maurer, & Scerbakov, 2001) to meet the above requirements. Thus, WBT-Master provides a number of Web-based tools, each of which supports a particular teaching or learning paradigm. All such tools are combined together to form a Web-based integrated teaching and learning platform that can meet teaching and training requirements of a wide range of different organizations. Currently, WBT-Master supports the following teaching and learning paradigms:

* Web-based learning -- traditional Web-based teaching paradigm reflecting the above mentioned online course model

* Web-based tutoring -- supporting the well-known goal-oriented and situation-oriented learning

* Web-based mentoring -- supporting the problem solving paradigm with an online mentor 

* Web-based brain-storming -- supporting the collaborative problem solving paradigm within a moderated online discussion

* Web-based knowledge mining, profiling, and delivery -- supporting the knowledge exploration paradigms

* Web project-based learning -- supporting the collaborative project-based learning paradigm in a Web environment.

This paper presents the last paradigm--Web project-based learning. The paper is organized as follows. The next section discusses issues and didactical requirements of project-based learning in a more traditional environment (Thomas, 2000). The third section defines technical requirements for Web project-based learning system. The fourth section describes the technical infrastructure provided by WBT-Master to support project-based learning on the Web. The fifth section describes our experience in applying WBT-Master enabled project-based learning in teaching a software engineering course attended by more than 200 university students and our experience in applying WBT-Master in a corporate environment. Finally, we present some conclusions and remarks for further work in this area.

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

Traditionally, project-based learning is a model of learning that organizes learning around projects. According to the definitions found in numerous research papers on project-based learning, projects:

* Are complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve learners in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities;

* Give learners the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time and;

* Culminate in realistic products or presentations (Jones, Rasmussen, & Moffitt, 1997; Thomas, Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999).

Other defining features of the project-based learning paradigm include authentic content, authentic assessment, teacher facilitation but not direction, explicit educational goals (Moursund, 1999), cooperative learning, reflection, and incorporation of adult skills (Diehl, Grobe, Lopez, & Cabral, 1999).

Careful development and planning of effective projects are crucial for the successful and effective application of a project-based learning paradigm. The basic properties of such effective projects might be summarized as follows (Thomas, Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999):

* Learners should be put at the center of the learning process.

* The project work is central to the curriculum.

* The project must motivate learners to explore important topics on their own.

* Project management should be accomplished by using appropriate tools, such as computer-based project management tools.

* The project outcome or the result that learners need to produce must include learning techniques such as problem solving, in-depth investigation of topics, research, reasoning, and so on.

* The results of the project should include a number of alternatives from which learners may choose; this will enable them to apply the experience they have gained.

* The project must be collaborative, that is learners might work together in small groups so they can present and discuss their partial and complete results with other learners at any time.

Let us look now at an example of a project-based learning course. In a study reported by Barron (Barron et al., 1998), learners worked for 5 weeks on a combination of problem-solving and project-based learning activities focused on how basic principles of geometry relate to architecture and design. The problem-solving component involved helping to design a playground in a simulated computer aided environment. The project-based component involved designing a playhouse that would be built for a local community center. Following their experience with the simulated problem, learners were asked to create two- and three-dimensional representations of a playhouse of their own design and then to explain features of each in a public presentation to an audience of experts.

Recently, numerous research papers on project-based learning have been published showing the benefits of this learning paradigm for both learners and teachers. Here is a sample list of such benefits (Thomas, 2000):

* Tremendous gains in learner achievements, as a number of research projects show (ELOB, 1999a; ELOB, 1999b)

* Large gains in learners' problem-solving capabilities (Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Stepien, Gallagher, & Workman, 1993; Williams, Hemstreet, Liu, & Smith, 1998; Gallagher, Stepien, Sher, & Workman, 1995)

* Gains in learners' understanding of the subject matter (Boaler, 1997; Boaler, 1999; Boaler 1998a; Boaler 1998b)

* Gains in understanding relating to specific skills and strategies introduced in the project (Boaler, 1997)

* Perceived changes in group problem solving, work habits, and other project-based learning process behaviors (Tretten & Zachariou, 1995; Tretten & Zachariou 1997).

Thus, the tremendous benefits for both learners and teachers show that project-based learning is a successful, innovative, and highly accepted teaching and learning paradigm. Following our strategy for building WBT systems as systems that should support such new and advanced teaching and learning paradigms, we decided to provide Web-based tools to support project-based learning in WBT-Master.

However, there are a number of didactical and technical requirements that need to be discussed before Web-based tools supporting project-based learning paradigm can be implemented. A number of research studies were conducted to identify and propose solutions to problems in implementing, applying, and planning project-based learning in a more traditional environment. Since such studies provide an insight into the learning process conducted by means of project-based learning paradigm, we used these results to define didactical requirements for Web-based project-learning tools. In summary, the results of these research studies are divided into two groups (Thomas, 2000): problems and challenges encountered by learners and problems and challenges encountered by teachers.

Learners usually had no problems in generating project plans and carrying out individual project steps. However, they had problems in following the generated project plan, and managing their time due to the absence of a more systematic approach to carrying out the project. From the learning point of view, learners had problems in managing properly the data that they collected during the project. For example, learners tend to draw conclusions or create project results from outside sources rather than directly from the data collected. To overcome such problems learners need to be supported by teachers in multiple ways. For instance, teachers can help learners to better anticipate the complexity of particular project steps, thus resulting in an early adjustment of the project plan and better project management. Further, teachers might point learners to data chunks, which are important for drawing conclusions to guarantee that learners analyze the data properly and are able to draw conclusions from their own data (Krajcik et al. 1998). Thus, Web-based tools that are intended to support a project-based learning paradigm need to incorporate a number of possibilities for teachers to provide feedback and support for learners. This support should at least include support on project management and data analysis.

On the other hand, teachers implementing project-based learning in their classrooms encountered the following problems (Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997). Firstly, classroom management, (i.e., balancing of how much of the work is conducted by learners on their own and how much is predefined by teachers), was reported as problem in project-based courses. Secondly, improper feedback by teachers caused serious problems. Usually, teachers did not provide enough feedback for their learners; this resulted in bad project management or bad project results by learners. Again, from the results of these studies we can identify new requirements for future Web-based tools for project-based courses. For example, classroom management must be very flexible, i.e., it should be possible for teachers to spontaneously balance what learners need to do autonomously and what they need to do because of teachers' recommendations. The second problem reported in the study refers to the same requirement described above--teachers need to have a wide range of possibilities to provide feedback and support to learners.

The next section discusses technical requirements for Web-based project learning in more detail.

WEB PROJECT-BASED LEARNING: TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

Currently, there are few Web-based tools that support project-based learning. The most notable are CAMILE (Guzdial & Kolodner, 1996) and CSILE (Cohen & Scardamalia, 1998). Although both of these tools provide support for some aspects of project-based learning (e.g., collaboration), they still lack some other important features related to project-based learning. For example, neither of these tools supports any kind of project management. Thus, it is not possible to define project plans or time schedules for the plan, or to present sample projects, etc. However, we believe that a Web-based tool claiming to support project-based learning must meet the requirements for project-based learning to the greatest extent.

Let us now discuss technical requirements of a Web-based system, which could enable project-based learning by considering all of its defining features, as well as its didactical requirements. We believe that a Web-based system supporting project-based learning should incorporate at least the following facilities:

* Support for project management. Teachers must be able to define the curriculum in the form of a project plan. Each project plan consists of several steps (milestones) that learners need to take to reach the final goal (e.g., to create a realistic product or a presentation) of the project. Each step of the project plan can be defined as a number of actions that learners need to accomplish. The project plan also incorporates a time schedule that sets a time frame for finishing each particular project step. The granularity of the project steps and the time schedule should be adjusted according to the knowledge level, preferences, and maturity of the learners. For example, the teacher might create more project steps with a shorter time frame for younger learners (e.g., younger school pupils) to be able to provide them with feedback more often. On the other hand, for university students the teacher can define the project plan with only a few project steps that require a longer time frame to accomplish, thus relying upon the maturity and the knowledge level of the university students to accomplish the project steps on their own. In the case of such project plans, it is necessary for the teacher to provide a sample project accomplished by following the project plan with all the project steps thoroughly documented. This sample project provides learners with important information for planning their project and estimating the time needed to accomplish each project step. In addition, in the case of projects done by a group of learners the sample project might help learners in allocating responsibilities for particular members of the group because the sample project provides information on the time frames needed to accomplish particular project steps.

* Learners are central to the learning process. In project-based learning, the project reflects the goals of the curriculum. However, learners must be supported in many different ways in achieving these goals. This support includes immediate feedback from teachers to learners for both their results published in the system, as well as their project plans. If learners fail to follow the project plan, the project plan must be adapted to the knowledge level and preferences of learners. For example, this can be achieved either by a better description of project actions or by providing an additional milestone. In addition, the teacher should offer a number of project alternatives to learners, taking into account their different cognitive models, preferences, and interests. Learners or learner groups might then select a project alternative that suits their preferences. Further, the system should not impose any restrictions on the technical environment, or the file formats that learners might use. Thus, the system should support all Web compatible formats, such as HTML, PDF, Win Word, Flash etc.

* Support for learners' collaboration. Communication among learners working on the same project (among learners in the same group and among learners from different groups) must be supported. Communication between learners and the teacher should be supported as well. The system must support standard Web communication facilities such as discussion forums, chat rooms, instant messaging, online presence lists, etc. Moreover, collaborative work among learners should be supported as well. Such collaborative work could include collaborative writing of project publications, or collaborative preparing of the project presentations. To provide these facilities the system must support uploading and downloading of files from and to local drives, a versioning system to track changes made by learners, etc.

* Support for data analysis. Teachers should evaluate learners' contributions to provide them with useful feedback and additional direction for their work. In certain situations, such data analysis is essential for estimating and adjusting the project plans and keeping learners on the right path to solving problems and achieving the curriculum goals. It can also help learners to better understand, present, and apply the results that they achieved.

VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT ROOM

We implemented the above didactical and technical requirements in WBT-Master as a special tool called Virtual Project Management Room. Virtual Project Management Room integrates the following components into a single tool:

* Special document (curriculum) describing in a few words the course and project motivation, problems that need to be solved, goals, etc.

* Special discussion folder providing a sample project with the definition of project plan, i.e., number of project steps and the timetable for these steps. Each step is documented with a number of publications.

* A number of project discussion folders, which provide project alternatives from which learners can chose. These folders also hold all learner contributions.

* A number of collaboration and communication tools, such as online presence lists, chat rooms, discussion forums, etc.

* Evaluation tool for teachers evaluations of learners' work.

Note: Each discussion folder has a basic contribution that defines a topic for all contributions placed in this folder; it also includes a number of other contributions that are made as follow-ups to the basic contribution.

A Web compliant GUI was designed to integrate all the above tools into a single Web browser window. Thus, teachers and learners can operate their favorite Web browser to work with the tool. The GUI is organized into three parts (see Figure 1.).

On the left side (of Figure 1) there is a tree-like structure showing all projects as corresponding discussion folders. The tree may be used to navigate to a certain project, or any other contribution included in a project discussion folder.

The upper right part of the GUI shows the current document, the curriculum, a project document, a learner publication, etc. The lower right part of the GUI is used for communication, collaboration, evaluation, etc.

A sample project-based session with a particular Virtual Project Management Room appears as follows. First, the teacher writes the curriculum document and attaches it to the Virtual Project Management Room. In the next step, the teacher defines a sample project, and publishes it in the Virtual Project Management Room. Finally, the teacher defines a number of project alternatives for learners.

Now, learners can create their user accounts and assign these accounts to a number of learner groups. Each of these groups is supposed to work on a single project in collaboration. First, learners access the Virtual Project Management Room and work with the sample project to become acquainted with the project steps and actions they need to accomplish at each step of the project. After working with the sample project, they chose one of the offered project alternatives and work on this project following its project plan. During their work, they collaborate and communicate with other learners and the teacher by operating different communication tools in the Room. At each step of the project, the teacher may provide learners with useful feedback by evaluating their previous work (see Figure 2).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

TEACHING SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WITH WBT-MASTER

WBT-Master: Academic Environment

We applied Virtual Project Management Room to conduct the 2002 summer term course in software engineering at the University of Technology in Graz; more than 200 students attended. The software engineering course in our university consists of:

* Lectures on basic software development paradigms and vocabularies applied to describe the development paradigms and development processes.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

* A software development project in which students develop a software application that follows one of the development methods presented.

The practical part of this course is project-oriented. Consequently, we wanted to conduct this project by means of WBT-Master. Thus, we prepared a special Virtual Project Management Room for the software engineering project. The room included the following items:

* Curriculum for the project, where we described the learning goals and learning mode and presented time schedules, etc.

* A sample software development project that clearly identified the development method, development process, and all steps that students must accomplish to successfully finish their projects.

* Four software development proposals from which students chose their own projects.

The Virtual Room provided all necessary tools needed to conduct a Web-based software development project for both teachers and students. Thus, students selected their accounts and groups and assigned their accounts to the groups. They posted their results as multimedia replies to a particular project folder, following the steps in the sample project. Communication tools were available for them at any time. Teachers were able to track students' progress, evaluate the students' results, and provide them with useful comments. The discussion forum was used extensively to discuss project related issues among students and among students and teachers.

Evaluation Results: Academic Environment

After the course was completed, we provided students and all involved teachers with a simple form to evaluate the results of applying this tool in practice. Here are some of the highlights that we received from this evaluation.

First, preparing and conducting the course required no additional effort by teachers. The sample project and the alternatives for students would have been prepared, regardless of the environment where the course was conducted. However, there was a need for a special lecture to explain to students how to work with the tool. No other sessions with students were needed because all the communication was occurring online. This greatly reduced the time required by teachers who otherwise would have needed to hold four to five offline project meetings with students.

The evaluation of students' answers was also positive. First, they were asked if accomplishing a Web-based project was more difficult than accomplishing an offline project, i.e., a project with face-to-face project meetings. Since these students had already completed a number of offline projects in other university courses, their answers might be seen as relevant. Only 5% of students answered that a Web-based project was more difficult to accomplish than similar projects they had undertaken during their classes.

Second, they were asked if they see advantages in using communication and collaboration tools to work together on the project with other students. Of these students, 80% saw such advantages and stated that the communication using the tool was in most cases better than in the offline mode, where the communication is usually restricted to the project meetings.

On the question of whether accomplishing such a Web-based project helped them to acquire additional skills, 90% answered that they did acquire additional skills; they saw no negative difference in the skills acquired when compared with the more traditional projects they had previously completed. Of the 90%, 85% answered that they acquired these skills because Virtual Project Management Room provided the integrated environment needed to accomplish their task, and that they had communication with teachers and other students, enabling them to discuss their results, to share their ideas with others, etc.

Finally, they were asked to assess the course. Their overall assessment was 1.4, where 1 is the highest possible mark on the scale of 1 to 5. The average assessment at the university is 2.5, and the average assessment at our institute is 2.

WBT-Master: Corporate Environment

WBT-Master was developed within the scope of the CORONET (Corporate Software Engineering Knowledge Networks for Improved Training of the Work Force) project funded by the European Union. The CORONET project ran from May 2000 until May 2002. The project consortium consisted of:

* Center for Advanced Empirical Software Research, the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

* Atlante, Madrid, Spain

* DaimlerChrysler, Ulm, Germany

* Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE), Kaiserslautern, Germany

* Fraunhofer Institut for Computer Graphics (IGD), Darmstadt, Germany

* Highware, Paris, France

* Institute for Information Processing and Computer Supported New Media (IICM), the University of Technology, Graz, Austria

* Centro de Computacao Grafica, Coimbra, Portugal

WBT-Master was mainly developed by IICM. The application partners in the project were DaimlerChrysler, both Fraunhofer institutes, and Highware. These institutions deployed WBT-Master and evaluated it within a wide range of possible applications.

The CORONET project evaluation activities were performed through the following three phases (CORONET, 2002):

* Phase 1 (June-August 2001): In-depth assessment of the first WBT-Master prototype. The results from this evaluation were the main input for the enhancement of the CORONET methodology and infrastructure during the second cycle of the CORONET project.

* Phase 2 (September 2001-April 2002): Continuous evaluation studies performed with the WBT-Master prototype, in parallel with incremental enhancements of the product.

* Phase 3 (February-April 2002): In-depth assessment of the improved WBT-Master prototype.

The three phases were conducted in a systematic way during the project according to a detailed evaluation plan developed during cycle 1 of the CORONET project. The evaluation approach was fine-tuned by the contribution of software and learning evaluation experts involved as members of the CORONET Pedagogic Advisory Board. Furthermore, the evaluation activities during phases 2 and 3 were monitored by additional requests derived from phase 1 results and from the comments of the second and third CEC in-depth project reviews in Paris (June 2001) and Madrid (March 2002).

General goals for the WBT-Master evaluation were:

* Analysis of learning effectiveness: Evaluation of the effectiveness of the WBT-Master system in supporting knowledge-sharing and collaborative learning.

* Usability analysis: Evaluation of the perceived ease of use and the perceived usefulness of the WBT-Master system, i.e. documentation and WBT-Master functionality.

* Cost-benefit analysis (CBA): Evaluation of the cost-benefit ratio of using the WBT-Master system.

Here we will concentrate on the analysis of learning effectiveness evaluations. In order to evaluate WBT-Master, the four partners that conducted the evaluation chose a "mixed evaluation" approach, where each partner selected one or more focus areas in which individually tailored evaluation processes were applied, but did not focus on all of the goals.

To analyze learning effectiveness, DaimlerChrysler, consistent with its role of a software development organization, focused on evaluating the effectiveness of WBT-Master in supporting continuing, self-directed, collaborative learning supported by means of a number of WBT-Master tools. The Web-based project-oriented tool was among these tools. The evaluation process was based upon the cognitive load theory and relied on a series of specifically designed evaluation sessions that were conducted in a specifically established evaluation laboratory setting, involving members of the research group as well as members of a business unit. Fraunhofer IESE, consistent with its role as a research institute, focused on evaluating the effectiveness of WBT-Master in supporting collaboration and knowledge-sharing among researchers. Again, several tools were tested, including tools supporting problem-solving in a Web-based environment. This was done by conducting two quasi experiments that compared the efficiency and effectiveness of conducting similar tasks with and without the use of WBT-Master. Highware, consistent with its role of a training service provider, focused on evaluating the effectiveness of WBT-Master in supporting Web-based learning by training and Web-based experience sharing by using the project-oriented tool, among other tools. Evaluation data was collected with the help of specifically designed questionnaires.

Evaluation Results: Corporate Environment

The first evaluation goal focused on the effectiveness of learning with WBT-Master from the perspective of software organizations, software engineering research organizations, and software training service providers, i.e. DaimlerChrysler, Fraunhofer IESE, and Highware. In accordance with the findings related to the first goal, all partners appreciated the innovative concepts offered by WBT-Master.

Nevertheless, the results of the evaluation studies related to learning effectiveness were not fully consistent. The data reported by scientists, software engineers, and software trainers at Fraunhofer IESE, Highware, and Highware's partner and customer organizations generally indicated improved learning effectiveness when using WBT-Master. The analysis of learning effectiveness conducted by DaimlerChrysler was partly influenced by negative judgment of the usability of the WBT-Master platform. This was reflected by the data received from DaimlerChrysler system users who expressed the feeling that the cognitive load associated with tool usage prevented them from learning in the proper sense.

As a by-product of the analysis of learning effectiveness, some observations and conclusions on cultural and organizational aspects could be drawn from the associated evaluation studies. The analysis of WBT-Master user profiles clearly showed that there was a positive predisposition to work with a Web-based learning environment because most of the users had been familiar with ICT for more than 2 years. However, some cultural factors were reported as being critical. They should be considered when introducing and operating WBT-Master.

First, shifting to e-learning clearly requires changes in the behavior of nearly all the roles involved. The changes are mainly related to:

* Learning approach: Shifting from the conventional face-to-face learning mode to using the Internet is not obvious for learners who have not yet had experience with or have not been prepared to using the new learning and knowledge transfer processes offered by a Web-based learning environment.

* Pedagogical approach: Replacing interpersonal relationships typically occurring in conventional classroom settings by interactions between the learner, the tutor, and the teacher in the Web-based learning environment requires new competence on the part of trainers, tutors, and authors of learning materials.

Using a learning environment like WBT-Master is not a one-time experience: it is highly recommended that both the methodology and the infrastructure be properly introduced to all users in order to facilitate the adequate use of the learning environment. It clearly appeared from all evaluation studies that system users need some time to handle the new environment before focusing on any specific learning activity.

Here are some highlights from the evaluation at DaimlerChrysler. In total, 40 individuals were involved in DaimlerChrysler's evaluation studies. Twelve of them actively participated in 34 in-depth evaluation sessions. The qualitative analyses applied to the "think-aloud protocols" and recorded video tapes of the evaluation sessions indicated that the concepts offered by WBT-Master (e.g., to combine collaborative problem-solving and document work) were generally appreciated by system users. The following function-alities were considered most beneficial in the specific setting of DaimlerChrysler's evaluation study:

* Self-paced worker's exploration of problems and projects,

* Synchronous communication facilities allowing the experts to give advice, and

* Various collaboration tools, i.e., forums and chat rooms for collaborative problem-solving with peer learners, and collaborative knowledge building.

Some highlights of the Fraunhofer IESE's evaluation are as follows. In total, seven individuals actively participated in Fraunhofer IESE's evaluation studies. The results of the evaluation studies show that knowledge sharing activities in a research department setting can be performed more efficiently and more effectively using the collaborative aspects offered by WBT-Master.

Finally, some of the results of the evaluation at Highware are as follows. In total, 32 individuals actively participated in Highware's evaluation studies. The results of the evaluation studies were mainly positive. The major findings can be summarized as follows:

* The concepts contained in the learning methodology of WBT-Master are presented in a clear and concise manner so that learners, trainers, tutors, and authors can easily identify the right learning scenario for their particular learning/training needs.

* The collaborative and communication functionality provided by WBT-Master offers a viable alternative to classical in-class training settings. The effectiveness of virtual classes was judged as being at least as effective as conventional in-class sessions.

* Regarding the effective support of Web-based knowledge and experience sharing during collaborative work, WBT-Master successfully helped establish a network of geographically distributed learners. From the point of view of management, the establishment of such a network, facilitating learning at the workplace by connecting people to a network of distributed learning resources (documents, courseware, peers, and experts) was considered as one of the main strengths of the CORONET system.

CONCLUSION

The practical results of teaching the software engineering course with Virtual Project Management Room and using of WBT-Master in a corporate environment lead to a number of important conclusions.

First, defining the didactical and technical requirements for a Web project-based learning tool properly, i.e., in accordance to all defining features of traditional project-based learning, was of the primary importance. By doing so, we implemented a Web-based tool that allowed the achievement of all benefits of traditional project-based learning, but in a Web-based environment. The results of our evaluation clearly show these achievements.

Secondly, the concept of building WBT systems around teaching and learning paradigms, rather than around technology, proves to be a proper direction for building WBT systems. Thus, WBT systems should be composed of a number of tools, each of them built according to the requirements of a particular teaching or learning paradigm. In that way, by just applying a proper tool, teaching or learning sessions in WBT systems may be conducted in correspondence with the most suitable teaching or learning paradigm. Consequently, the results of such sessions will tremendously improve. This can only lead to a greater acceptance and success of WBT systems.

References

Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311

Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sets, and settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Boaler, J. (1998a). Alternative approaches to teaching, learning, and assessing mathematics. Proceedings of the European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece.

Boaler, J. (1998b). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 41-62.

Boaler, J. (1999). Mathematics for the moment, or the millenium? Education Week Commentary, 29, 30 & 34.

Cohen, A., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Discourse about ideas: Support for active monitoring and regulation in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 114-142.

CORONET Project Final Report (2002). Project of the information societies technology (IST) program of the EU. Retrieved May 16, 2005, from http://www.iese.fhg.de/coronet/documents/reports/final_report_v10.pdf

Diehl, W., Grobe, T., Lopez, H., & Cabral, C. (1999). Project-based learning: A strategy for teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Center for Youth Development and Education, Corporation for Business, Work, and Learning.

Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (1999a). A design for comprehensive school reform. Cambridge, MA: Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound.

Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (1999b). Early indicators from schools implementing new American school designs. Cambridge, MA: Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound.

Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195-200.

Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., Sher, B. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136-146.

Guzdial, M., & Kolodner J. L. (1996). Computer support for learning through complex problem-solving. Communications of the ACM, USA, 39(4), 43-45.

Helic, D., Maurer, H., Lennon, J., & Scerbakov, N. (2001). Aspects of a modern WBT system, Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for Electronic Business, Education, Science, and Medicine on the Internet, SSGRR 2001, CD-ROM publication (ISBN: 88-85280-61-7).

Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffit, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.

Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.

Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional and interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted Child, 16, 338-357.

Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved May 17, 2005, from http://www.bie.org/tmp/research/researchreviewPBL.pdf

Tretten, R., & Zachariou, P. (1995). Learning about project-based learning: Self-assessment preliminary report of results. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.

Tretten, R., & Zachariou, P. (1997). Learning about project-based learning: Assessment of project-based learning in Tinkertech schools. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.

Williams, D. C., Hemstreet, S., Liu, M., & Smith, V. D. (1998). Examining how middle schools students use problem-based learning software. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA/ED-Telecom 98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Freiburg, Germany.

DENIS HELIC, HARALD KROTTMAIER, HERMANN MAURER, AND NICK SCERBAKOV

IICM, TU Graz, AUSTRIA

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail].