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.