Project-based pedagogy for the facilitation of webpage design



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.


Technological problem solving Technological process Project-based classrooms 



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


  1. Allen, D. E., Donham, R. S., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ankiewicz, P. (2003). Technology education at school: Illusion or reality? Inaugural address. Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Authority, S. A. Q. (1997). The South African Qualifications Authority Bulletin, Vol. 1(1): May-June. Pretoria: Office of the Executive Officer, SAQA.Google Scholar
  8. Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (1996). Information systems development methodologies: Tools and techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Balfanz, R. (1991). Local knowledge, academic skills, and individual productivity: An alternative view. Educational Policy, 5(4), 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Beyer, B. K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills: A handbook for secondary school teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Boden, M. (1990). The creative mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  15. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castro, J., Kolp, M., & Mylopoulos, J. (2002). Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: The Tropos project. Information Systems, 27(6), 36–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cotton, J. (1995). The theory of learning strategies. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  21. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. De Bono, E. (1986). CoRT thinking. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, pp. 51–76.Google Scholar
  25. Department of Education. (1997). Outcomes based education in South Africa. Pretoria: DoE.Google Scholar
  26. Dover, A. (1983). Computers and the gifted: Past, present and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(2), 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (1996). Strategies for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. Elmer, R. (1998). Probing intentions of design and technology students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flynn, D. (1992). Information systems requirements: Determination and analysis. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Fogarty, R., & McTighe, J. (1993). Educating teachers for higher order thinking: The three-story intellect. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) and Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development (GICD). (1999). Technology draft progress map. Pretoria.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Griffiths, G. (1998). The essence of structured systems analysis techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Herrington, J., & Parker, J. (2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The virtual classroom: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. International Technology Education Association. (ITEA). (1997). Standards for technology education. First draft. Blacksburg, Va: Virginia Tech.Google Scholar
  38. Jakovljevic, M. (2002). An instructional model for teaching complex thinking through web page design. DEd thesis. Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South Africa.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, S. D. (1997). Learning technological concepts and developing intellectual skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (1991). Learning together and learning alone (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, S. D., & Thomas, R. (1992). Technology education and the cognitive revolution. The Technology Teacher, 51(4), 7–12.Google Scholar
  43. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mind tools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kerlinger, F. N. (1992). Foundations of behavioural research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Lautenbach, G. (2014). A theoretically driven teaching and research framework: Learning technologies and educational practice. Educational Studies, 40(4), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Renata, T. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in education research. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Magadla, L. (1996). Constructivism: A practitioner’s perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 83–88.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  61. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Pfleeger, S. L. (2001). Software Engineering: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  64. Pressman, R. S. (2005). Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (6th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Schwartz, P. (2013). Problem-based learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Assessed April 2010.
  69. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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. 98–104Google Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wheatley, G. H. I. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Education (APK Campus)University of JohannesburgAuckland ParkSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations