Session F3C
Teaching Queueing Theory with an Inquiry-based
Learning Approach: A Case for Applying WebQuest
in a Course in Simulation and Statistical Analysis
Yuen-Yan Chan
Assistant Professor, Department of Information Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, yychan@ie.cuhk.edu.hk
Abstract - This paper presents a case on applying
WebQuest, a model for constructivist inquiry-based
learning, to facilitate the teaching and learning of queueing
theory. The author is a faculty member in an information
engineering department, teaching an undergraduate
course titled Simulation and Statistical Analysis in which
queueing theory is a key topic. In this paper, the author
shares her experience of adopting WebQuest as a
pedagogical tool. Overviews of constructivist pedagogies
related to WebQuest, namely inquiry-based learning,
collaborative learning, and scaffolding, are also provided.
Instead of teaching the classic topic in an instructor-
centered, direct instruction approach, the author
constructed a WebQuest to help the students to design and
conduct simulation projects to answer several nontrivial
questions related to queueing theory. Scaffolding aids
such as detailed descriptions of procedures and useful
links to web resources, as well as an evaluation rubric,
were also included in the WebQuest. This paper also
includes results of a quantitative analysis on the
effectiveness of adopting WebQuest to motivate students’
learning. Students’ interview comments and the author’s
own reflection are also given.
Index Terms – Queueing Theory, Simulation, WebQuest,
Inquiry-based learning.
INTRODUCTION
Queueing theory and simulation are two essential disciplines
in engineering education. The former enables mathematical
analysis and derivation of various performance parameters in
communication networks and computer systems; the later
facilitates evaluation of many complex, real-world systems.
Simulation is often emphasized as an alternative tool for
queueing theory in performance evaluation, which in itself is
yet a key component in the simulation curriculum for students
to understand and become amazed at the complexity of many
queueing networks that exist in real-life situations.
This paper describes the efforts to facilitate the teaching and
learning of queueing theory in a course titled Simulation and
Statistical Analysis. The course is for the second and the third
year undergraduates of the full-time Bachelor of Engineering
in Information Engineering programme at the Chinese
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-1
University of Hong Kong. Its objective is to introduce various
topics related to simulation, including basic queueing theory.
The course is offered once per academic year. Our research
was conducted to the 2006/07 class, with a class size of 125
students. Unlike traditional practices, the instructor removed
the midterm examination and regular assignments, and
assessed students’ performance based on their deliverables of
a collaborative project. Through participating in the project,
students were motivated to study various subject matters in
queueing theory, such as the Poisson arrival process and the
queueing disciplines, and applied such knowledge to answer
nontrivial problems given by the instructor, such as the
number of service instances within a cluster for achieving
optimum performance. The project was conducted with the
help of a WebQuest, a pedagogical tool for web-enabled
inquiry-based learning. Both quantitative and qualitative
analyses of the effectiveness of teaching were performed.
Results showed that the constructivist, inquiry-based learning
approach was effective to motivate students to learn queueing
theory, and achieve beneficial auxiliary outcomes.
PEDAGOGICAL BACKGROUND
Confucius the great ancient Chinese teacher and philosopher
once said, 'I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and
I understand'. In education, constructivism is a learning
philosophy founded on a premise that knowledge cannot be
delivered directly but to be constructed by the learners
themselves. Bruner proposed that learning is an active process
in which new ideas are constructed from the current and past
knowledge processed by the learners [1]. The learning
process is further enhanced by interactions and collaborations
with the others, especially when the others are more
competent in the area being explored (Social Development
Theory, Vygotsky [2]). The author provides overviews of
further related pedagogy backgrounds in the following
subsection:
I. Inquiry-based Learning
Inquiry-based learning is an educational approach elicited by
Dewey’s work [3] that helps learner to seek for truth,
information, or knowledge by questioning. Learners are
encouraged to invent new hypotheses instead of investigating
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
 Session F3C
questions posed by the instructor. Through the process of the return of 2.6 million of hits by querying the term
inquiry, individuals construct their perspectives of the natural 'webquest' in major WWW search engines.
and human-designed worlds. Inquiry creates a motivation to Well-designed WebQuests promote instructional practices
need or want to know. It also emphasizes on the development by integrating research-supported theories with effective use
of inquiry skills and an inquiring attitude [4]. Inquiry-based of Internet resources, open-ended questions, and authentic
learning is different from general project-based learning; the tasks that motivate students. A number of research works
former emphasizes the inquiry processes throughout the entire have shown that WebQuest is effective for inquiry-based
project while the later focuses on the development of the learning [9]-[12]. The author has also published separated
ultimate deliverables. Tsankova and Dobrynina [5] suggested research works related to WebQuest [13]-[15].
the following procedures for inquiry-based learning: A WebQuest contains the following components [8]:
z Step 1: Initiating inquiry z Introduction page: Sets the stage and provides some
z Step 2: Coaching during an inquiry background information.
z Step 3: Assessing inquiry-based learning z Task page: Specifies a duty or an assignment which is
In next section, the author describes how these steps were doable and interesting.
gone through in the inquiry-based project activity. z Resource page: Contains a collection (or the pointers)
of information sources necessary to complete the task.
II. Scaffolding
z Process page: Gives a description of the procedures for
In learning theory, scaffolding refers to the process of the learners to accomplish the task. The process is
providing learning supports so that learners can accomplish usually broken down into clearly described steps.
tasks that ordinarily cannot be performed on their own [6]. z Evaluation page: Includes an assessment rubric which
The question should be nontrivial, which cannot be too simple describes how the learners will be evaluated.
that learners can quickly respond with ease. When the z An optional teacher page that includes information to
learners are being asked to solve nontrivial problems, they help other teachers implement the WebQuest.
often need greater support to reach accurate conclusions and
desired outcomes. In this way, the instructor can provide IMPLEMENTATION
corresponding instructional aids to facilitate the learning A project of capacity planning for a multi-server queueing
process. Instructional scaffolds can be provided in both network by simulation was launched. Instead of listing the
tangible and intangible formats, including regular meetings instructions and requirements directly in form of a project
and discussions between the learners and the instructor, and specification, a commercial-like request for proposal (RFP)
relevant reference materials prepared or collected by the was given. The instructor acted as the Buyer and the students
instructor. With the advancement of ICT, many of the were the Suppliers. Students were required to form into
scaffolding aids are now being provided through electronic groups of 4, make names of consulting companies for their
channels such as the Internet. own, and assign different roles among the group members.
III. Collaborative Learning The total duration of the project activities was 14 weeks.
Table 1 summarizes the activities, durations, and the
Collaborative learning is a learning model evolved from the corresponding deliverables.
works of the social constructivists such as those from
Vygotsky [2] and Dewey [3]. In a collaborative learning TABLE I
environment, learners on various performance levels work PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND DELIVERABLES
together in small groups toward a common goal. They Activities Duration Supplier Deliverables
develop a set of roles and are responsible for one another's 1. Buyer releases RFP document N.A. ---
to Suppliers
learning. The success of one learner helps others to be 2. Suppliers prepare and submit 2 weeks A proposal in response
successful. Collaborative learning also emphasizes on the response to the RFP to the RFP
development of and the enhancement of the higher-order 3. Buyer evaluates and responds to 2 weeks ---
any Q&A from suppliers
thinking skills [7]. 4. Presentations by short-listed 1 week ---
suppliers
IV. WebQuest 5. Project implementation 6 weeks Simulation program
6. Buyer invites Suppliers for 1 week ---
WebQuest is a web-enabled inquiry-based pedagogical tool demonstrations
proposed by Dodge [8]. It exists in the form of a website that 7. Suppliers prepare and submit 2 weeks A project report with
contains carefully designed instructional contents. In project reports simulation data analysis
WebQuest, a portion or all of the information that learners
interact with comes from the Internet. It thus provides a web-
based environment for problem-solving, information I. Step One: Initiating Inquiry
processing, and collaboration. Nowadays, WebQuest is
In the RFP, an imaginary trading system, called the eSecurities
widely adopted around the world. Its popularity is proven by
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-2
 Session F3C
System (eSS), was specified. Figure 1 presents the basic specific roles. In this way, group members collaborated
architecture of the system, which was a multi-tier architecture and exhibited higher-order thinking and discussions.
with four main server side components, namely the Web Example of a group and the corresponding members is
server, the application server, the LDAP server, and the host given below:
database. The system supported core business functions TABLE 2
EXAMPLE OF A COLLABORATIVE GROUP
including stock quote, stock trading, database replication, and
Group Name Magic Consulting Co.
user authentication. Each function requires services from Member 1 Project Manager
more than one server, for which the service demands were Member 2 Senior Consultant
specified. Students were required to propose a capacity sizing Member 3 Business Analyst
Member 4 Technology Analyst
solution such that the system could meet a certain service level
agreements (SLA) specified in the RFP, such as the time to
complete certain transactions. Furthermore, they were z Scaffolding: Extensive scaffolding aids were provided
required to justify their solutions with analytical data. throughout the project. These included a clear
assessment rubric provided in the beginning of the
Client Side Server Side (Production Environment) project, the continuous interactions between instructor
FRONT-TIER MIDDLE-TIER HOST
and students; and the provision of references and
Web Server Application Server

Core business
Database supporting materials via a WebQuest. In addition, the
User interface
logic
application
data storage groups were required to submit project proposals before
the actual project implementation. From these proposals,
the instructor could learn about the status and learning
…

Internet
LDAP Server
User profiles progress of individual groups, and provide feedbacks and
storage

Concurrent users
reinforcements accordingly.
FIGURE 1 III. Step Three: Assessing Inquiry-based Learning
HIGH LEVEL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE OF AN IMAGINARY TRADING SYSTEM.
According to [5], assessment of inquiry-based learning should
The RFP document did not revealed nor suggested how the be informed and driven by the inquiry process. Assessment
nontrivial question could be answered. Rather, students were should provide feedback to all participants and help to
encouraged to relate various contexts learned from lectures improve the quality of ongoing inquiry. Instead of evaluating
including queueing theory, simulation techniques, and the entire project as a whole in the end of the semester, the
statistical analysis methods to seek for a solution. Concepts instructor had set up milestones for the project, and required
related to queueing theory, such as the queueing disciplines, students to submit deliverables at three different stages in the
distribution of customer arrivals, and the measurement of project. Assessments were made upon receiving deliverables
queueing delay were essential for building a simulation at intermediate stages, with immediate feedbacks and
program to solve the problem. comments provided. In this way, students could proceed to
II. Step Two: Coaching During an Inquiry subsequent project stages with references to the feedbacks
obtained from intermediate deliverables, so that the quality of
Coaching is necessary for narrowing the gap between the ongoing inquiry could be improved. Figure 2 below shows
students’ freedom to explore and the likelihood that the some of the intermediate deliverables made by the students.
desired outcomes can be achieved successfully. Throughout
the project, the instructor applied various constructivist
pedagogical strategies to provide coaching supports to
students. These include collaborative learning, scaffolding,
and the use of a WebQuest to facilitate learning. The first two
items are elaborated below.
z Collaborative Learning: Students were required to form
consultant teams each consisted of 4 members. They
could form the groups among themselves according to
their own preferences. Students within the same group
might possess different areas of competence. In order to
encourage students to contribute according to their own FIGURE 2
INTERMEDIATE DELIVERABLES MADE BY STUDENTS.
capabilities, the instructor required each group member to
give a role to himself or herself according to their In addition, a detailed assessment rubric was announced to
personal characteristics and preferences. The group the students at the beginning of the project. It listed detailed
members then participated in the project according to the assessment criteria of each of the deliverables. In particular,
chosen roles. The instructor also explained how group deliverables were graded on five levels, ranging from
members could participate in the project fulfilling the
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-3
 Session F3C
elementary schoolwork to global consulting firm products. EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS
Evaluation was made not only according to the final results
but also the inquiry strategies employed along the project Various evaluations were made to study the effectiveness of
proposals and implementations. teaching the course under an inquiry-based learning setting
with WebQuest (the author refers this to as the treatment in
IV. The WebQuest the rest of the discussions in this section). In this paper, the
A WebQuest titled 'WebQuest: eSecurities System author mainly presents the results related to the learning of
Architecture Design and Capacity Planning' was established queueing theory.
for the project. It is illustrated in Figure 3 below. I. Quantitative Survey
A survey on the level of interest towards topics in queueing
theory and simulation was conducted. Questionnaires
containing a same set of questions have been distributed to the
students twice: once before the launch of the project (pretest),
and once after the completion of the project (posttest). 58
copies of valid questionnaires were returned. The
questionnaires consisted of two parts. Part One contained two
questions, which recorded personal particulars of the students,
including gender and year of study. Part Two consisted of 20
questions, which asked the students to indicate their level of
interest towards various topics in queueing theory and
simulation. All questions in Part Two were in a 6-point Likert
scale, with 1 indicated 'not interested at all' and 6 indicated
'strongly interested', respectively. Question 1 to 15 measured
the level of interest towards topics in queueing theory,
FIGURE 3
WEBQUEST ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROJECT. Question 16 to 20 measured the level of interest towards
topics in simulation.
The WebQuest was designed according to the guidelines A series of t-tests were applied to the pretest and posttest
proposed by Dodge [8]. It consisted of five main components: results of the Part Two questions. Table 3 lists the significant
z Introduction page: Sets the stage and provided some mean differences between pretest and posttest.
background information, including the description of an
imaginary Buyer, the Bank of Information Engineering. TABLE 3
SIGNIFICANT MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE-AND POSTTEST RESULTS
This was to prepare students to be consultants and be Topic Pretest M.D. S.D. t- Sig.
ready to investigate and solve the nontrivial assignments. Mean value
z Process page: Described the steps that the students Poisson distribution 2.775 .672** 1.205 4.249 .000
should go through to accomplish the project goals. A Exponential distribution 2.896 .672** 1.368 3.742 .000
Arrival processes 3.034 .603** 1.183 3.882 .000
softcopy of the RFP document was embedded. Interarrival time 2.931 .603** 1.168 3.932 .000
z Task page: Specified the three deliverables to be Markov chains 2.965 .534 *
1.340 3.036 .004
submitted, namely the project proposal, the simulation Queueing networks (QN) 3.241 .500* 1.314 2.897 .005
Single-server queueing sys. 3.413 .620* 1.399 3.377 .001
program, and the final project report. Multiple-server queue. sys. 3.431 .620 *
1.448 3.263 .002
z Resource page: Contained useful links and references of Queueing disciplines 3.362 .586* 1.338 3.336 .001
subject knowledge, as well as those related to project Multi-classes QN 2.965 .655** 1.291 3.863 .000
System throughput 3.155 .534* 1.245 3.268 .002
management such as samples of proposals and reports. Server utilization 3.137 .586 *
1.270 3.513 .001
z Evaluation page: Listed an assessment rubric informing Little’s Law 2.965 .620* 1.322 3.575 .001
how students would be evaluated. Performance was Utilization Law 3.051 .568* 1.365 3.174 .002
**
Inter. Resp. Time Law 2.758 .741 1.331 4.239 .000
graded according to five levels, namely the work of Theory of simulation 3.086 .793** 1.280 4.716 .000
primary school pupils (poor), secondary school students Simulation programs 2.844 .706* 1.643 3.275 .002
**
(weak), undergraduates (average), consultants from a Selecting input prob. dist. 2.896 .896 1.223 5.579 .000
Simulation data analysis 3.275 .862** 1.205 5.444 .000
small company (good), and consultants from an
Statistical analysis 3.310 .931** 1.211 5.850 .000
international consulting firm (excellent). Detailed Queueing Theory (Q1-15) 3.072 .608** 1.034 4.477 .000
benchmarks for attaining each level were also stated. Simulation (Q16-20) 3.082 .837 **
1.093 5.834 .000
The instructor could update the WebQuest from time to Overall (Q1-20) 3.075 .665** .987 5.131 .000
time. In this way, additional resources and further elaboration Note. Mean Difference (MD) equals the difference between pretest and
of project requirements could be provided according to the posttest. *p<.05 **p<.001 (2-tailed significance)
feedbacks from the students.

1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI

37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-4
 Session F3C
Our results were encouraging. Positive and significant As indicated in Table 4, one-way ANCOVA showed that
changes (p<.05) in level of interest were recorded from all the difference of change in level of interest between genders
surveyed topics. In particular, highly significant (p<.001) was not significant (F=1.372, p=0.247 for queue theory topics,
changes were recorded in several topics related to queueing F=0.840, p=0.363 for simulation topics, F=1.352, p=0.250 for
theory, including Poisson distribution, exponential overall results, respectively). Therefore, the treatment effects
distribution, arrival processes, interarrival time, multi-classes between genders did not differ significantly. From Table 5,
queueing networks, and Interactive Response Time Law. The one-way ANCOVA showed that the difference of change in
author also noticed that the effects in all survey items related level of interest between year two and year three students was
to simulation topics were highly significant. This might also not significant (F=0.146, p=0.704 for queue theory topics,
because the project was practice-oriented, while simulation is F=0.112, p=0.740 for simulation topics, and F=0.148, p=0.702
a practical alternative to analytical performance evaluation. for overall results, respectively). Therefore, the treatment
Two independent variables, gender and the year of study of effects between students at different years again did not differ
the students, were tested for their impacts on the treatment. significantly.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied on the data to In summary, combining the results between the pair-wise t-
study such impacts in (1) queueing theory topics (Q1-15), (2) tests and ANCOVA, statistical analysis showed that inquiry-
simulation topics (Q16-20), and all topics (Q1-20) as a whole, based learning and WebQuest produced significant increase in
respectively. Table 4 presents the results of an ANCOVA on students’ level of interests in studying queueing theory and
pretest and posttest results with gender as fixed variable (male simulation topics. The effect was equally positive to students
= 43, female = 15). Table 5 presents an ANCOVA on pretest of both genders, as well as students from different years of
and posttest results with year of study as fixed variable study. Moreover, the treatment had a greater effect on topics
(second year = 27, third year = 31). in simulation then topics in queueing theory. Nevertheless,
the effects to both types of topics were significant.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY FOR TEST OF BETWEEN-SUBJECTS EFFECTS ON GENDER II. Student Interviews
Source of Variance Sums of df Mean F-ratio Sig.
squares square The author conducted interviews with students for their
(1) Regression 1.006 1 1.006 1.372 .247 comments about studying queueing theory with WebQuest and
Residual error 42.717 55 .777
inquiry-based learning approach. Many of them were new to
Total 844.107 58
such learning model and found it challenging. For example:
(2) Regression .761 1 .761 .840 .363 I have not encountered such way of learning before. I
Residual error 49.871 55 .906 find it challenging. But I was also worried at times
Total 967.240 58
because there seemed no absolute answers.
(3) Regression .979 1 .979 1.352 .250 Fortunately the professor gave us some additional
Residual error 39.857 55 .725 resources through the WebQuest such as the useful
Total 863.373 58
links and the samples of project proposals, which
Note. enabled me to complete the project with greater
(1) Queueing Theory (Q1-15) confidence. I also find myself more interested in the
(2) Simulation (Q16-20)
(3) Overall (Q1-20) related topics. (KFL-f-3-07)
Year three (final year) students found the project
TABLE 5 challenging and authentic to commercial situations. For
SUMMARY FOR TEST OF BETWEEN-SUBJECTS EFFECTS ON YEAR OF STUDY example:
Source of Variance Sums of df Mean F-ratio Sig.
squares square
To study queueing theory and simulation in this way is
(1) Regression .116 1 .116 .146 .704 fun! I have been a summer intern in an investment
Residual error 43.667 55 .794 bank before, and they do practice in similar ways. The
Total 844.107 58 RFP response and project implementation experiences
(2) Regression .102 1 .102 .112 .740 are very helpful, especially during job interviews!
Residual error 50.468 55 .918 (BH-m-3-07)
Total 967.240 58 But a few students who used to perform well in exam-
(3) Regression .110 1 .110 0.148 .702 oriented courses prefer traditional assessment methods. The
Residual error 40.726 55 .740 following comments were sent by a student with an average
Total 868.373 58 GPA higher than 3.7:
Note.
I am used to the traditional examination-and-
(1) Queueing Theory (Q1-15) assignment assessment models. I scored well in exams.
(2) Simulation (Q16-20) Therefore I prefer the having regular assignments
(3) Overall (Q1-20)
submissions and examinations. ‘Have you gained
anything valuable besides the scores during the
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-5

project?’ the author asked. Mmm…yes, indeed. I have
learned how to cooperative with other classmates.
Prior to the group project, I used to work on my own.
The project has provided me some chance to interact
with the others. (WKS-m-3-07)
Overall, students found inquiry-based learning new and
interesting to them. The commercial-like project
implementation process also increased their motivation to
complete the project and to answer nontrivial problems with
solution constructed by their own. Although a few of those
who used to perform well in traditional examination-oriented
assessment models still preferred being evaluated by
assignments and examinations, they admitted having acquired
the interaction and communication skills that they could not
gain in other engineering courses.
III. Instructor’s Reflection
The following presents the author’s personal reflections upon
the completion of the course teaching.
This is the first time for me to apply inquiry-based
learning in an engineering course. Students welcomed
this idea at the beginning, as they thought it is less
pressured of them to implement a group project than
taking examinations and home assignments. However,
soon after the project began, they realized it is more
challenging (may be more difficult) for them to
develop methodologies for problem solving on their
own. I did not provide explicit step-by-step guidelines
to them but showed them general directions and
provided them the pointers to corresponding
resources. When I explained to them that problem-
solving skill is essential for engineers, and when they
started finding the clues with my scaffolding
resources, they began to appreciate this new
pedagogical approach. They also found the WebQuest
interesting and helpful, especially the detail
evaluation rubric. Most of my students were able to
make deliverables at the above-average level, which
were beyond the capability of an undergraduate. If I
could refine my teaching and the course, I would
reduce the class size to around 40 so that I can have
closer interactions with my students, and provide
better scaffolding aids to them. Overall, inquiry-based
learning is very suitable for the inquisitive and
insightful engineering students. (YYC-f-3-07)
CONCLUSION
In this paper, the author presented a case of using WebQuest, a
web-enabled inquiry-based learning pedagogical tool, to
facilitate the conduction of inquiry-based learning in a course
for Simulation and Statistical Analysis. Overviews on the
pedagogy strategies including scaffolding, collaborative
learning, and WebQuest were also provided. The author
shared her experience and provides the details of the course
project execution. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3C-6
Session F3C
results showed that the pedagogy was effective. Instructor’s
reflection was also included.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Acknowledgement to Hong Kong Research Grant Council’s
Earmarked Grant 4329-02E for sponsorship.
REFERENCES
[1] Bruner, J. S., Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1966.
[2] Vygotsky, L., "The socialist alternation of man," Journal of the All-
Union Association of Workers in Science and Techniques for the
Furthering of the Socialist Edification in the USSR, 1930. (Original text
in Russian Language)
[3] Dewey, J., How We Think : a Restatement of the Relation of Reflective
Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: Heath, 1933.
[4] Educational Broadcasting Corporation.
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/.
[5] Tsankova, J. and Dobrynina G., "Developing curious students,"
Integrating Inquiry across the Curriculum, 2005, pp.85-109.
[6] Bruner, J. S., Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1986.
[7] Gokhale, A. A., "Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking,"
Journal of Technology Education, Vol 7, No 1., 1995.
[8] Dodge, B., "Some thoughts about WebQuests"
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596/about_webquests.html Accessed
7 March 2007.
[9] Lou, Y. and MacGregor, S. K., "Web-based learning: how task
scaffolding and web site design support knowledge acquisition," Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, Vol 37, 2004.
[10] March, T., "The learning power of WebQuests", Educational
Leadership, Vol 61, No 4, 2003, pp.42-47.
[11] Peterson, C., Caverly, D.C., and MacDonald, L., "Developing academic
literacy through WebQuests", Journal of Developmental Education, Vol
26, No 3, pp.38-39, 2001.
[12] Spanfelner, D. L., "WebQuests, an interactive approach to the Web",
Community and Junior College Libraries, Vol 9 No 4, pp.23-28, 2000.
[13] Fleissner, S., Chan, Y.-Y., Yuen, T. H., Ng, V., "WebQuest markup
language (WQML) for sharable inquiry-based learning", ICCSA (1),
pp.383-392, 2006.
[14] Chan, Y.-Y., "Creating reusable WebQuest objects with WebQuest
authoring engine ", IEEE ICALT, pp.282-284, 2005.
[15] Pun, S. W., Lee, F. L., Chan, Y.-Y., and Yang, H. "Student teachers’
beliefs to teaching with WebQuests in the classroom," SITE, pp.3351-
3355, 2005.
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI