Disappointing….best describes most of the Web Quests that I have explored. Even the ones that appear on the "Best of..." lists compiled for teacher reference left me wondering by what standard they are considered to be even acceptable.
In theory, the concept of an inquiry based web quest holds great appeal and reasons for classroom use are compelling. Unfortunately, of all the Web Quests I've recently reviewed, there was only one that I would actually consider using as part of my instruction. Truthfully, I would probably reconstruct it before using it myself.
So what are my gripes with the Web Quests I reviewed? Probably my greatest frustration was broken links. Often, time was spent tracking down resources (that were required to complete specified tasks) only to find that the link was broken or the resource no longer exists. I suspect that many of the Web Quests are crafted for the purpose of completing a graduate course assignment, used once or twice, and then abandoned. If the person who creates the Quest doesn’t maintain it then it becomes part of an info graveyard filled with lifeless data. The problem is; you can’t tell at the outset if you are going to run into broken links and considerable time can be lost in the process.
Some of the Web Quests I reviewed (chosen based on subject matter) were just outright stupid. Remember the “Gong Show”? It kept coming to mind as I read feeble attempts at wit intended to engage the user. Some of the sites were so ridiculous that I wanted to “gong” them before finishing the home page! Worse still were the Quests created by people (teachers?) who don’t seem to know how to use proper grammar or spell correctly.
Design flaws that I noted include: tasks and activities that don’t seem relevant to the initially stated purpose, too many concepts to realistically cover in a Web Quest format, and tasks that were partially completed or framed out to the extent that little thought was required on the part of the “Web Quester”.
There were two ideas that I came across that I did like and feel are worth mentioning. One of the Web Quests provided “alerts” that were intended to suggest to the user additional dimensions that could be pursued. For example, one of the alerts made the suggestion to look for new or unfamiliar terms, to record those terms and throughout the course of the Quest to record the meaning of those terms as they became more meaningful.
Another concept that I liked presented three levels of tasks for completion. The designer of the tasks made it clear that the first tasks were designed to address the “skill” level. (What is a food label?) While completion of these tasks did not require high level thinking, it did (I felt) serve to reinforce or establish prior knowledge. The next set of tasks was designated as being at the “concept” level. (Why is it important to understand a food label?) With these inquiries the user needs to rely on a foundation of prior knowledge and apply it to a more opened ended line of questions. Responding to the “concept” level tasks require the Web Quester to user higher level thinking. Finally, there was a task designated as being at the “application” level. (Plan a day's menu for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks utilizing the information you learned from the food guide pyramid and food labels.) Completing this task truly requires the synthesis of all levels of understanding of the topic.
I would like to integrate these ideas into my Web Quest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a great post that reflects much of the frustration I experienced while reviewing my webquests as well. The broken link syndrome was very aggravating as there was no way to complete the task using the resources provided (or not). Many of the Web Quests that were listed in the aggregate lists were either removed by the school districts where they originally resided or simply no longer avaialble. I used Google to find websites that I felt were even worth the time to evaluate them. However, like you I did find some that had great promise and I may use some of those ideas in my WebQuest.
ReplyDeleteI also had a great deal of trouble using many of the provided resource lists as the same problems discussed above were prevalent throughout. However, Julia if you could somehow create a "gong" rating system for webquests that could be posted by their links I think you would have a huge hit on your hands. Of course, this is coming from the music teacher!
ReplyDeleteI like that gradation of task levels too. Often times some background knowledge does need to be gathered prior to the higher level thinking comes in. Did I say often times...when you think of it, all the time is a better description. (I think I had this discussion with someone in the Instructional Design class.) The higher levels of thinking are built on the lower levels. Look at the way Bloom's levels are represented--as a pyramid with the higher levels built on the lower levels. You can't synthesize, apply, or create based on information if you don't first understand and remember it.
ReplyDeleteSo an internet scavenger hunt for facts and answers to questions is a valid way to start the background knowledge stage. Then the open-ended questions and inquiry can come into play.
Thanks for bringing this point up.
Julia, you crack me up with the "gong". I really liked how you suggested that these lessons that are taking up space in the web are ones that were created for a purpose, usually a college course and then never really thought of again. I can only imagine how much irrelevant and useless information is on the web and especially with WebQuests that are supposed to be devoted to education. I think educators sometimes have very little understanding of what true higher level thinking is. Being a younger educator myself, I am still working on grasping all aspects of having my students really use their brains to come up with a solution and using higher order thinking to inquire knowledge.
ReplyDelete