You'll see notes like this next to most slides. You can pause or return to slides to have more time to read the longer ones.

Encouraging learner inquiry is one of the most important elements of a WebQuest.

According to webquest.org, “A WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented lesson format in which most or all the information that learners work with comes from the web.” The site credits Bernie Dodge of SDSU and Tom March of SD Unified School DIstrict with developing the model, along with many other consortium participants and the definition echoes that of Dodge in “Some Thoughts About WebQuests” (1997). Robert J. Blake (2008) defines “webquest” in his glossary as “an educational research activity where students use the web to investigate and analyze assigned topics.”

Dodge (1997) notes that WebQuests can be either short term or longer term. He notes that with the former, knowledge acquisition and integration are the main learning objectives while the latter focus on extending and refining knowledge. In terms of time used, he describes short term WebQuests as using up to three class periods while a longer term one may take a week to a month.

Blake (2008) recounts a list of types of WebQuests for language learners described by Dodge (2002): “retellings, compilations, mystery hunts, journalistic reports, design projects, creative projects, consensus building, persuasive discourses, self-knowledge searches, analyses, judgement tasks, and scientific inquiries.” Dodge’s detailed taxonomy, including numerous examples is available at http://webquest.sdsu.edu/taskonomy.html.

WebQuests can be considered constructivist and task-based in approach.
Healy and Klinghammer (2002) say the following about the constructivist approach:
"In a constructivist environment, the learner is the center of the learning process, the one who constructs knowledge and meaning, linking incoming or new knowledge and information with existing knowledge. The teacher provides the environment for relevant learning by creating whole, authentic, inherently interesting activities and by setting up multiple representations of reality and actual experience for learners, thus enabling them to construct their own knowledge."
WebQuest designs are expected to fulfill these environmental criteria.
Levy and Stockwell (2008) discuss that while what exactly constitutes a task in language teaching is still being negotiated, tasks can be considered as not simply a goal, but also a “means or agent of learning” and as central to the design process of guided learning experiences. A WebQuest task “provides a goal and a focus for the student.”

Dodge (1997) describes a number of parts a WebQuest should contain in order to effectively focus learner activity. He says WebQuests need to have at least an introduction, a task, a set of resources, a process description, guidance, and a conclusion. The introduction lays the groundwork, the task is a description of something manageable and of interest to the students, the resources are mainly links to online sources of information needed to complete the task, the process is a step-by-step description of how to proceed with the task, guidance includes such things as frameworks and idea maps to help with information organization, and the conclusion wraps up the task in much the same way a conclusion to an essay or presentation does. Dodge (1997) also describes a number of what he calls “non-critical attributes”, which include being group activities and having motivational elements built in. Dudeney (2007) describes a more refined and recently commonly accepted guideline of four major sections; introduction, task, process, and evaluation. In this conception, Dodge’s resources and guidance elements are built into the process section wile evaluation presents a rubric for evaluating task completion.

Gavin Dudeney, in The Internet and Language Classroom: A practical guide for teachers (2007), gives a brief, yet clear and complete, description of what WebQuests are, some reasons for using them, and points to some examples and resources online. I would like to focus here on the reasons he details. Briefly, these reasons are that WebQuests are a manageable way for most teachers to incorporate internet use into their teaching, that they offer opportunities for communication through being cooperative activities, by design they tend to foster critical-thinking skills, and they can be motivating and rewarding for learners by engaging them in realistic and interdisciplinary activities.

Let's look at some screenshots of my WebQuest for an Oral Communication course for first-year Business majors at a university in Japan.

On the Introduction page I lay the groundwork for the activity with an overview and access to the other elements of the WebQuest.

Here I describe the final task to be achieved.

On this page, which takes a number of slides to show, I lay out each specific steps and provide links to the web resources needed to complete them.
Note that various steps encourage various kinds of communication and collaboration between students, analysis and synthesis, etc.

Here they engage with video input.

Finally they get to the presentation phase.
If you look a the schedule you can see that this is clearly a longer term WebQuest.

Here I reiterate what they have accomplished, and how this has met objectives noted in the course syllabus. I also left them with a question for reflection.

Turning to my own reflection, I wondered how does my activity stand up as a WebQuest and in promoting quality interactions in English?

As to meeting WebQuest structure, I think mine does do that. I also think it encourages consensus building, analytical thinking, and judgement tasks while being tied to an activity that these students may either be required to do as part of their work or wish to do as part of their own personal wealth-building.

Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) propose a list of things to look for, and questions to ask, to promote quality interactions when creating CALL-based communication activities. They say instructors need to attend to learner fit, using written language for reflection, using electronic communication for production and interaction, the oral interaction with other learners, use of online help and feedback, and strategy development.
I adapted this framework to help evaluate my own WebQuest after designing and implementing it.
A. Fit. Does the language fit the learners? Does the task create a need to exchange and collaborate?
Yes and no. Learners are expected to negotiate with group members as to which companies to research, how to answer the questions about the investment advice they look at, which investment criteria to apply, which investments to make, and then how to present their information. It also has language relevant to their major, but a great deal of the language was beyond the ability of many of these students.
B. Written reflection. Are learners prompted to reflect on both form and meaning?
Yes, at least with respect to meaning. Learners are expected to submit written responses in two of the steps.
C. Electronic communication. Are all learners provided opportunities to produce language?
Perhaps, though in theory groups could ask one or two people to do all the written submissions. At least one group seems to have done this.
D. Oral interaction. Does the task encourage oral interaction at an appropriate level?
Yes and no. It encourages a great deal of discussion. However, in terms of level it was perhaps overly ambitious to expect of this particular group. They also have to present their decisions to the class, and for the majority of students this seemed to be a perfectly achievable goal if they invested the effort. A few did not.
E. Strategy development. Do the activities promote greater understanding and appropriate use of strategies for electronic communication?
Perhaps to some extent, but I didn't set out with this as a goal and I don’t have confidence that they do.
Also,
F. Online help and feedback. Are online help and feedback available and are learners encouraged to use them?
Some of the resources were in a sense “help” resources and they were required to look at them and evaluate them. They were able to contact the instructor as well, and receive feedback via mail if desired, but most feedback happened in person.

Clearly there is room for improvement, but overall I do feel this was a successful activity and I plan to repeat it in the future, perhaps with some modifications.

Using these ideas I think you should be able to at least adapt existing WebQuests for your own teaching context, and even develop them from scratch. I suggest using the WebQuest.org website to help guide you in finding, developing and adapting WebQuests.
Also, just doing a search for “ESL webquests” will bring up a whole host of sites with WebQuests designed for language learners and development advice.

The following printed resources were consulted in preparing this presentation:

Blake, Robert J. 2008. Brave new digital classroom: technology and foreign language learning. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Chapelle, C. & Jamieson, J. 2008. Tips for teaching with CALL: practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Dudeney, Gavin. 2007. The internet and the language classroom: a practical guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. 2008. CALL dimensions: options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. New York: Routledge.

Healy, D. & Klinghammer, S.J. 2002. Constructing meaning with computers. TESOL Journal 11(3), 3.

The following websites were consulted in preparing this presentation:

http://webquest.org/index.php WebQuest.Org home page.
http://webquest.org/index-resources.php Useful WebQuest Resources.
http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html Dodge, B. 1997. Some Thoughts About Webquests.
http://webquest.sdsu.edu/taskonomy.html Dodge, B. 2002. WebQuest Taskonomy: A Taxonomy of Tasks.

You can also find these links at my website, bieri4nanzan.weebly.com, on the resources page.