RSA3: Inquiry-Based Learning

Resource #1: http://www.teachthought.com/learning/20-questions-guide-inquiry-based-learning/

Resource #2: http://www.inquirybasedlearning.org/?page=What_is_IBL

Resource #3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u84ZsS6niPc

Resource #4: http://www.teachthought.com/learning/4-phases-inquiry-based-learning-guide-teachers/

Additional Resource #1 (peer-reviewed): http://web.b.ebscohost.com.cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=15&sid=ae2bc290-daaf-4206-a488-e7b9ed54c85f%40sessionmgr115&hid=102&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zODQxOTIzOSZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ952028

Additional Resource #2 (peer-reviewed): http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ952028

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is essentially “a teaching method that engages students in sense-making activities” (What is IBL?, 2013). This method guides students to learn through the exploration of a question, or an inquiry. Students are led to ask their own questions and work to answer these questions. Involving students in their own learning process should not be completely teacher directed, but asks students to synthesize, interpret, and evaluate information (Crombie, 2014). The teacher is much more a facilitator than an instructor. A teacher does not simply give information to the students, but works to guide and the students to find information and answer their own questions. This lack of control over the direction of a lesson may seem intimidating to some teachers. Crombie suggests that there are three level of structure within IBL: structured, guided, and open (2014). Structured is, obviously, more structured with the teacher directing inquiry with step-by-step instructions. Guided starts to give the students more autonomy in the steps, but the teacher may still direct the inquiry, and open is the least structured. Teachers and students new to IBL should use a structured approach to IBL (Crombie, 2014). Heick gives us 4 stages of inquiry to consider: 1 - interaction, 2 - clarification, 3 - questioning, and 4 - design. In phase one and two of IBL students work to ask a question, gather resources, and organize their information (Heick, 2013). According to Heick the fourth and final stage (design) is “designing an accessible, relevant, and curiosity-driven action or product to culminate and justify inquiry” (2013). This stage is where students show their learning. In figure one below, from 20 questions to guide inquiry-based learning  gives a good idea of questions that can be asked during each of these stages (2013).

Figure 1: Questions to ask during each phase of IBL.

In their article, Promoting Higher Order Thinking Skills Using Inquiry-Based Learning, Madhuri, Kantamreddi, and Prakash Goteti discuss how IBL can impact higher order thinking skills (HOTS) (2011). They claim “in a conventional class room based environment, the scope might be little for the students to use their thought process and ingenuity” (Madhuri et al., 2011). Because of this, IBL is adopted to foster HOTS. In order to conduct this study, “the process comprises context, pre-laboratory, laboratory and post-laboratory sessions” (Madhuri et al., 2011). This study concluded that IBL has better proved outcomes than traditional teaching especially when related to HOTS; IBL makes the material more relevant to unmotivated students and improves their overall achievement (Madhuri et al., 2011). Another article that deals with IBL in the classroom is Zeek’s Teaching the Research Paper through Inquiry-Based Instruction (2011). Zeek challenges the traditional notion of independent research being isolated in order to avoid plagiarism (an idea that is only a facade - student freely share information anyway) (2011). Using technology for research in a way that promotes IBL, connection with the real world, and student collaboration has “increased students’ research and writing skills, decreased my paper load, and increased student investment during all parts of the research project” (Zeek, 2011). In classes, Zeek helps students come up with a research project idea and students develop up to twenty questions, initially, to work to answer (2011). Turning a research paper into a real-world project where students answer their own questions and see how real-world issues affect them has made research projects more meaningful and fostered student buy in (Zeek, 2011).

Both of the above articles come to conclusion supported by the literature in class (cited in the first paragraph). IBL is not teacher centered, but revolves around student interest and student inquiry (Crombie, 2014). IBL engages students in activities that helps them construct their own understanding (What is IBL?, 2013). Through the four phases of IBL, students’ motivation and achievement is increased (Heick, 2013). This is all shown in the conclusions of the above studies. IBL is clearly a good choice to use in a classroom in order to foster students’ engagement and HOTS. One thing to note is that IBL needs to be well planned out and managed by a teacher. Students need to be prepared to guide their own learning - it is very different than the direct instruction many students are used to. When students are invested in their own learning, motivation will go up and in turn achievement and true learning will increase.

Resources

(2013). 20 questions to guide inquiry-based learning.  Teacher Thought.  Retrieved from

http://www.teachthought.com/learning/20-questions-guide-inquiry-based-learning/

(2013). What is IBL? Transformative experiences for students. Academy of inquiry-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.inquirybasedlearning.org/?page=What_is_IBL

Crombie, S. (2014, May 26). What is Inquiry-Based Learning. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from Youtube.com : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u84ZsS6niPc

Heick, Terry. (2013, October 11). 4 phases of inquiry-based learning: A guide for teachers.  Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/learning/4-phases-inquiry-based-learning-guide-teachers/

Madhuri, G. V., Kantamreddi, V. N., & Prakash Goteti, L. S. (2012). Promoting Higher Order Thinking Skills Using Inquiry-Based Learning. European Journal Of Engineering Education, 37(2), 117-123.

Zeek, S. (2011). Teaching the Research Paper through Inquiry-Based Instruction. Inquiry, 16(1), 75-85.

RSA 2 - Project Based Learning

RSA #2 - Project Based Learning

Module 4 Resource #1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMCZvGesRz8

Module 4 Resource #2 - http://www.wholechildeducation.org/blog/project-based-learning-and-common-core-standards

Module 4 Resource #3 - http://www.edutopia.org/blog/PBL-aligned-to-common-core-eric-isslehardt

Additional Article #1 (Peer reviewed): http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ980187

Additional Article #2 (Peer reviewed): http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ890562

Education is changing.

This is something every teacher has heard his or her entire career, but what is actually changing? Common Core State Standards and the PARCC exam seem to be ushering in a new way of life for educators and students. I am not attempting, in this post, to deal with the benefits or drawbacks of these changes, just simply to exam one way to meet the challenge - Project-based learning (PBL). BIE has a great video that gives an overview of what PBL is and how it can be implemented into the classroom.

Most people live in a world of projects; we constantly need to solve problems. However many traditional school settings do not reflect this reality. PBL focuses on developing critical thinking, collaboration, and communication - skills not usually skills taught in classrooms (Project Based Learning: Explained). By focusing on a project teachers help deepen understanding and focus on these skills that will be needed in the future. Unfortunately, doing well on tests does not mean a student has really learned. Often the information is gone the next morning - it is not internalized. PBL focuses on student centered projects that solve problems. These projects encourage student inquiry and develop teamwork and presentation skills as well (Project Based Learning: Explained, n.d.). Projects are not about memorization, but learning in depth about a real life subject.

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) “emphasize creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, presentation and demonstration, research and inquiry, and career readiness” (Markham, 2012). It is easy to see how PBL fits into these new nation-wide standards; three of these qualities are explicitly listed in the summary of PBL above, and the the others are definitely implied within the youtube video. Markham works to tackle the question of teaching these new standards. Teachers have been pushed to focus on depth rather than coverage, thinking not memorizing, and demonstrating not performing. A solution to the shift in teaching that will be required is PBL (Markham, 2012).

Markham suggest “6 Moving Parts of PBL” to implement this well and in a way that will align with CCSS:

1. Moving from instruction to inquiry: While content is, of course, still important, curriculum should shift to starting with a questions rather than with delivery of information. PBL offers teachers the opportunity to pose a challenge and guide students through solving this issue - not to simply tell them how to fix the problem.
2. Balancing knowledge and skills: The focus should be a blend of knowing and doing. Students should master skills and be able to demonstrate this mastery with presentation through collaboration. With PBL, teachers should act as a coach to guide and develop these skills.
3. Going deep: Deep thinking takes time to develop and is not compatible with current testing requirements - these tests do not reward insight or analysis in any way. PBL approaches this issue using fewer standards (like CCSS) and uses tools to help students focus on solving one problem.
4. Teaching teamwork: PBL requires students to work in groups and teams  using contracts and rubrics to solve problems. It promotes self awareness, respect, and self-control.
5. Establishing a culture of inquiry: Students must ask the questions - PBL depends on it. Teachers should not be standing at the front always giving instruction; students should be taught to take control and ask leading questions.
6. Blending coaching with teaching: In PBL teachers work WITH the students giving feedback, questions, and encouragement.

(Markham, 2012).

Now that it is clear that PBL is a great solution to the impending changes of CCSS, how does a school implement PBL well? Green Street Academy in Baltimore, Maryland is an interesting example of a school that is working to do this school-wide. The transformation of this school was not was or done overnight. Moving to PBL pedagogy is is something that required multiple steps (Isselhardt, 2013). These steps consisted of:

1. Working with teachers to affect a deliberate culture and practice shift from teacher-directed instruction to inquiry-based learning
2. Alternative pedagogical development
3. Resource identification

(Isselhardt, 2013)

This school attempted to introduce best-practices with a group of teachers used to working autonomously from other teachers in the same grade level and subject areas. One of the many goals was cross-curricular learning and planning to make less disjointed experience for the students. The approach to implement PBL brought several educators together to strengthen their relationships and create student-centered projects (Isselhardt, 2013). They focused on making critical thinking more a part of the process rather than just a result. There were three major steps they implemented for planning:

1. Standard Map - they saw a need for “a comprehensive, cross-curricular, Common Core-derived Standards Map that visually explicated every standard across each discipline” (Isselhardt, 2013). This map forced teachers to review and relearn all standards.  
2. Project Route - Once the standard map was developed, a route or timeline mapped out the project and skills that would revolve around the “big  question”.
3. Preparation for success - this step consists of creating classroom modules and identify standards not being met by the project. Enrichment was added for these standards.

While this program is a success there are still many lessons learned and areas to improve. These include classroom management and preparing students for this new type of classroom (Isselhardt, 2013).

Schwalm and Tylek discuss implementing PBL in a different setting in their article, “Systemwide Implementation of Project- Based LEarning - The Philadelphia Approach” (2012). This article discusses the implementation of PBL in out-of-school time (OST) programs. While all research and most implementation of PBL focuses on the classroom, Philadelphia implemented it in 180 OST programs in 2009 (Schwalm & Tylek, 2012). OST programs are a very suitable environment for PBL. They have smaller student-to-teacher ratios and a much more informal setting - they do not have to stick to class schedules or formal learning requirements. At the same time they offer a structured approach to capitalize on extra time with students. Students are able to move around and enjoy their time while learning. Philadelphia attempted to implement PBL to develop structure and uniformly systemwide (Schwalm & Tylek, 2012). Some of the keys to this implementation were project timeframes, documentation, and supports.

The program was very successful. After two years it was fully implemented, city wide, while including student voice. It has increased the learning opportunities across the OST network and had a positive impact on staff development (Schwalm & Tylek, 2012). However, there were some problems. The most prevalent being lack of staff training. This relates very well to the articles above. If staff is not trained in implementing PBL and does not have a framework to do so, it will not succeed. While PBL offers a great opportunity to increase skills like communication and critical thinking, teachers must know how to implement it well.

Education is changing and PBL is a good route to take in order to meet some of the CCSS, but is it a good solution for all students? In their article, “The Effectiveness of Project-Based Learning on Pupils With Learning Difficulties Regarding Academic Performance, Group work and Motivation”, Filippatou and Kaldi explore this question (2010). This specific study is an offset of a larger study done in Greece with six fourth grade mainstream classrooms (Filippatou & Kaldi, 2010). This study focuses only on 24 students with learning difficulties regarding “academic performance and attitudes towards self efficacy, task value, foup work and teaching method applies” (Filippatou & Kaldi, 2010). As summarized above with the other articles, this parent study found that PBL increased performance with middle and high achieving students. It used a variety of methods to collect data including a pre and post-test and case study research.

The findings of this study are very interesting. There were many benefits for students with learning disabilities. The hands-on approach of PBL expanded their knowledge on the unit. These students also had improved attitudes towards group work and their own involvement in the learning process (Filippatou & Kaldi, 2010). They responded much better to PBL than other passive methods of learning. However, there was little to no improvement for these students when it came to retaining knowledge of specific terminology from secondary sources, such as books and magazines. For these sources to be beneficial they still must be adapted to an appropriate level to assist in understanding for students with low reading abilities (Filippatou & Kaldi, 2010).

Project-based learning has proved to be a great tool to help with the changing landscape in education. It lends itself well to many of the deeper level thinking standards of the CCSS. However, implementation of PBL cannot happen overnight and takes a fair amount of planning, staff development, and student training. When it is done well, studies show that it improves students engagements and learning at all levels for every type of learner.

References

Filippatou, D., & Kaldi, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Project-Based Learning on Pupils with Learning Difficulties Regarding Academic Performance, Group Work and Motivation. International Journal Of Special Education, 25(1), 17-26.

Isselhardt, E. (2013, February 11). Creating Schoolwide PBL Aligned to Common Core. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/PBL-aligned-to-common-core-eric-isslehardt

Markham, T. (2012, February 21). Project-Based Learning and Common core Standards. Retrived from http://www.wholechildeducation.org/blog/project-based-learning-and-common-core-standards

Project Based Learning: Explained. (n.d.). Retrieved February 05, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMCZvGesRz8

Schwalm, J., & Tylek, K. S. (2012). Systemwide Implementation of Project-Based Learning: The Philadelphia Approach. Afterschool Matters, (15), 1-8.

RSA1: Professional Learning Communities:

Online Resources:

http://www.edutopia.org/professional-learning-communities-collaboration

http://www.edutopia.org/professional-learning-communities-collaboration-how-to

Professional Learning Community (PLC) is a term that is thrown around to describe most meetings in most districts. However, many are not true PLCs. A true PLC is a community of teachers with a shared vision and goals who are focused on student learning, not their own teaching, and are willing to work openly and collaboratively to improve this learning.

Dufour says, “To create a professional learning community, focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively, and hold yourself accountable for results” (2004). In his article, “What Is a ‘Professional Learning Community’?”, Dufour brings up 3 “Big Ideas”: Ensure that students learn, A culture of collaboration, and A focus on results (2004). These big ideas give a great overview of what a true, and successful, PLC looks like. The first big idea focuses on the intentional shift from teaching to learning.Teachers must ask themselves and each other what school and classroom characteristics have most impact on student achievement and figure out how to adopt those characteristics. Every teacher must work together to answer these questions: “What do we want each student to learn? How will we know when each student has learned it? How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning” (DuFour, 2004, p. 8)? The last question is what leads to true change. The response to these students needs to be timely, based on intervention instead of remediation, and directive (DuFour 2004, p. 8). Teacher must do this work in a safe community; this leads to the second big idea and main focus of this post, collaboration. If collaboration is not done well the PLC will not be effective. It has to be a team effort with all member completely bought in. Unfortunately, most teachers work in isolation. Dufour suggests that a PLC should be a systematic approach teachers use to work together in order to improve their practice. An on-going stream of questions should promote student learning and achievement (DuFour, 2004). There are many problems that can arise in this step. As DuFour does not look at these in depth, they will be discussed below with another article. The final big idea DuFour discusses is focusing on results. PLCs are judged based on results. Teachers evaluate students, set goals, and attempt to measure the success of these goals. Many teachers suffer from what DuFour calls the DRIP syndrome, data rich/information poor (DuFour, 2004). PLCs welcome data and work to turn it into relevant information. Data only really helps if there is a way to truly compare it. Some ways to do this is for teachers to develop common assessments that test student growth based on skills, and to share successful practices and strategies when students fall short (DuFour, 2004). In the end, PLCs depend on teachers’ hard work and collaboration.

Taking a closer look at DuFour’s second big idea, collaboration, one must consider what may get in the way. In the article “Five Dysfunctions of a Professional Learning Community”  Weber gives the most common mistakes members of PLCs can make. These mistakes, in isolation or together, lead to an unproductive PLC. This article actually starts by quoting DuFour and reminding the reader that the organization of a PLC is focused on and committed to the learning of each student. Weber has seen many issues as he has watched teachers try to implement PLCs, and he describes the top five (2014). The first dysfunction is a lack of norms. Every team must set up norms as the foundation of its PLC; if norms are not set up, conflict or dysfunctional team members will tear the group apart. When norms are set up, collaboration is easier because members know how to communicate, makes decisions together, and handle conflict (Weber, 2014). The second dysfunction is a lack of team goals. If a group does not agree on goals they may be working towards separate directions. “A team without goals will lack purpose, urgency and a destination” (Weber, 2014). The third dysfunction is a lack of trust. Team members have to trust each other to have an open group and to learn from each other. Team members will not be vulnerable and truly grow without a common trust. The fourth common dysfunction is a lack of communication. Traditional, top-down, leadership found in most educational settings is very different than what is found in an effective PLC. Communication problems arise when norms and goals are not set in a PLC (Weber, 2014). The final common dysfunction in PLCs is a lack of essential learning outcomes. Effective teams provide common learning outcomes for all students. The lack of these make a “disjointed curriculum experience” for the students (Weber, 2014). Having any of these dysfunctions will make a PLC ineffective. It is easy to see how all of these dysfunctions are perversions of DuFour’s second big idea, collaboration; this article simply expands on problems that can arise if collaboration is not done well. A PLC is only as good as its group members are committed to true collaboration.

Looking at the major issues that could happen in a PLC, it may seem very difficult to ever have a successful one with a real group of teachers. How can a any group of people who are naturally different work together in such a seamless way? It seems there are too many differences that will get in the way and cause issues. Daoudi and Bourgault expel this myth in their study, “Discontinuity and Collaboration: Theory and Evidence from Technological Projects”.  This study empirically measure how different aspects can affect group work. The study found that differences in culture did not bring about discontinuity in groups. Contrairily,  different work practices including objectives, priorities, differences in handling issues and the decision making process have a negative impact on a group’s effectiveness. The findings of this study further reinforce DuFours big idea of collaboration and Weber’s conclusions about dysfunctionality. A successful PLC will have norms and goal set up to ensure each member is committed and on the same page while allowing members to stay autonomous and keep their teaching identity.

While DuFour gives a good view of what a PLC should look like and do and Weber warns against certain dysfunctions, the question remains of how to actually create a successful PLC. What steps should a group of teachers take in order to have a well-functioning, successful PLC as described by DuFour with his three big ideas? Ullman works to answer these in her article “How to Create a Professional Learning Community”. This article discusses different tips for creating a successful PLC. The first thing that is necessary is to teach participants how to collaborate. A group cannot assume that this will come naturally and needs to create its own protocols and norms to function. Next the group needs to create an atmosphere of trust. This needs to start from the top down; school leaders must demonstrate that the goal is collaboration and not competition. The next tip is to allow enough time. Whether this means common prep periods or allotted meeting time during the school day, members of a successful PLC have dedicated and sufficient time together. In a well-functioning PLC this will create an “open door” culture where members will continue meeting informally on their own time as well. Being broad and inclusive is also important. Teachers should  be ready and willing to include any staff members that may lend perspective. On the same note, getting outside help can be beneficial as well. Sometimes consultants with more or different experience can help a PLC navigate through unfamiliar territory. The final tip the Ullman offers is to remember what the “L” means in PLC (2009a). Remember that each member should work to have open discussions and learn from his or her colleagues (Ullman, 2009a). These tips naturally flow into DuFours three big ideas, but offer some interesting and unique insight on how to actually get to healthy PLC.  

Ullman has another article that is very similar to DuFour’s and also echoes some of Weber’s main points, “Teachers and Community Members Practice TLC with PLCs”. This article actually quotes DuFour on the topic of looking for superheros in schools: "We need to let go of the idea that heroic individuals will change schools, ... Instead of looking for superheroes, we need to work collectively to help everyone be successful." Ullman discusses that flexibility of focus within a PLC - these groups can meet about any topic and be composed of countless combination of staff and administration (2009b). However PLCs can be used successfully. She discusses a success story where PLCs changed teacher practice and improved student achievement. In this article, Ullman gives real life examples of DuFour’s third big idea, a focus on results. This article show that when teachers develop and follow the guidelines of a true PLC instruction, and in turn students, will grow.

Throughout all of these articles a few common threads are woven. First, teachers must shift their focus to student learning. This must be done through collaboration. In order for collaboration to be done well, and for the focus to truly shift, effective PLCs must be set up. An effective PLC has common norms and goals, buy-in from every member, and is a safe place for collaboration not competition. There are some common mistakes that are made when setting up PLCs, but these can be avoided by the group developing and following common mission, vision, and goals. When a PLC is developed and used well teachers, and more importantly students, succeed.

References

Daoudi, J. & Bougault, M. (2012).  Discontinuity and collaboration:  Theory and evidence from      technological projects.  International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(6), 1240012-1 - 1240012-25.

DuFour, R. (2004). What Is a "Professional Learning Community"? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6.

Ullman, E. (2009a). How to Create a Professional Learning Community. Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.edutopia.org/professional-learning-communities-collaboration-how-to

Ullman, E. (2009b). Teachers and Community Members Practice TLC with PLCs. Retrieved February 01, 2015, from http://www.edutopia.org/professional-learning-communities-collaboration

Weber, S.. (2014). Five dysfunctions of a professional learning community. Retrieved from http://edge.ascd.org/_Five-Dysfunctions-of-a-Professional-Learning-Community/blog/2965471/127586.html