Identify the circumstances and design principles that were common among the three examples, define the role(s) of the teacher and student, and explain how and why these learning experiences increased student engagement and knowledge/skill acquisition and transfer. Explain how technology is leveraged to enhance and transform learning.
Consider the Buck Institute for Education Gold Standard for Project Based Learning that you read about in this unit. Do you think any or all of these prejects meet the criteria as a Gold Standard? Why or why not?
Consider the Buck Institute for Education Gold Standard for Project Based Learning that you read about in this unit. Do you think any or all of these prejects meet the criteria as a Gold Standard? Why or why not?
Our first EDIM 502 assignment had us analyzing three examples of project-based learning. The three examples are all articles taken from Edutopia and include: More Fun Than a Barrel of.. Worms; Geometry Students Angle into Architecture through Project Learning; and March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies’ Migration. Further, I also analyzed each article to see if the project-based learning fit that of the Gold Standard according to the Buck Institute for Education.
All three articles were common in that they all included three of the seven essential project design elements according to the Gold Standard PBL. The three elements include: challenging problem/question, sustained inquiry, and authenticity. I was happy to see that each article had a challenging problem or question because it makes learning more meaningful for students. Students are not learning for the sake of memorizing, but rather engaging in inquiry so that they can use their research to answer a question that matters to THEM. According to teacher Billie Hetrick, “when students are choosing what they want to learn about and when we give them the opportunity to ask questions, and we take time to answer questions, their learning is more meaningful to them” (Curtis 2001). I was happy to see that each article exhibited sustained inquiry because students are continuously asking questions, finding resources, and then asking deeper questions. Students are busy with hands-on learning, tracking their progress and conducting field trips and interviews to deeper their understanding. Frances Koontz, a 3rd grade teacher says she sees big dividends in the hands-on approach to learning—from better writing to deeper investigation skills (Curtis 2002). I was happy to see that each article had some sort of authenticity to it, whether it be authentic context, real-world processes, or personal authenticity. Authenticity helps to increase both student motivation and learning. Students in Eeva Reeder’s class spend time authenticating real-life applications of abstract mathematical concepts, as well as learning the value of experience in working as a team to produce a product (Armstrong, 2002).
The roles of the teachers/students in all three articles were very similar from the point of inquiry (some teachers actually picked the project rather than allowing the students to explore ideas on their own). In most cases, the teacher acted as a “facilitator” on “stand-by” while students engaged in the inquiry process. In most cases as well, the student acted as a “researcher” and the “leader”, taking ownership and control over exploration. Because of this, I believe that each of these three examples increased student engagement and knowledge/ skill acquisition and transfer. Student engagement in all three examples is exceptionally high because students are actively using inquiry skills as they see fit, as well as taking ownership and not just memorizing information for their next test. As a result, students in all three examples are enthusiastic and have a hunger/ strong desire to learn. Students are building knowledge/skill acquisition and transfer because they are following John Dewey’s philosophy of reflection on experiences. According to the Gold Standard PBL article, reflection on the content knowledge and understanding gained helps students solidify what they have learned and think about how it might apply elsewhere, beyond the project (Larmer, Mergendoller, & Boss 2015). In addition to engagement and skill transfer, there is a significant amount of technology integration in each of the three articles. Students are creating muli-media presentations, using digital cameras, connecting with others globally in a “flat classroom” manner, and taking their projects to higher levels on the SAMR model. In this way, technology is transforming the way students are learning and processing.
In terms of meeting the Gold Standard of PBL, I feel that only one example met the expectations- More Fun Than a Barrell of… Worms. I feel that this example had a challenging problem/question (in each example: "What Happens at Night"; "Concern for a Classmate"; and "Looking Toward Wall Street"). This example kept students continuously engaged in sustained inquiry through things like interviews, field trips, and finding resources to help answer inquiry questions. This example was authentic in terms of personal authenticity because students in “Concern for a Classmate” example researched something that was meaningful to their interests, meaningful to their concerns, and directly related to an issue in their own lives—Cystic Fibrosis diagnosis of a classmate. I feel that this example included many types of students choice/voice. For example, students in “Concern for a Classmate” had a say in the project and a sense of ownership as they researched more about a concerned classmates on-going health struggles. I feel that this example includes reflection because the usage of “thinking maps” and project day helps students learn from experience and deepen their reflection. I feel that this example includes critique and revision because in Phase 2 of The Project Approach, students elicit parent/community involvement/feedback as they further develop their inquiry. I believe this is the only “weak” area on the Gold Standard PBL because it doesn’t include student/peer feedback, however, the article does suggest that there is critique and revision from community members/ "expert adults". I feel that this example includes a public product because in each of the scenarios of the article, students came up with a public product/ presentation. As part of The Project Approach, students at this school invited parents, community members, staff, and students from other schools to present (Curtis 2001).
To elaborate more on why I don’t feel that the other two examples made the gold standard, I feel that Geometry Students Angle into Architecture Through Project Learning failed to involve TRUE student voice and choice. I feel that this PBL was more teacher-dictated than student-chosen. I do believe it DID contain all other areas to warrant itself as "gold". March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies’ Migration failed to involve student voice/choice (the projects were already established by the teacher), reflection (each child had a folder but there was no DEEP reflection), critique/revision (no peer feedback), and no public product (from what I could understand students did not ever present their findings—at least not in a public manner like many of the other PBL projects did).
References:
Armstrong, S. (2002, February 11). Geometry Students Angle into Architecture Through Project Learning. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/geometry-real-world-students-architects
Curtis, D. (2001, October 01). More Fun Than a Barrel of ...Worms?! Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/more-fun-barrel-worms
Curtis, D. (2002, June 06). March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies' Migration. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/march-monarchs
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Gold Standard PBL: Essential Project Design Elements. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://bie.org/blog/gold_standard_pbl_essential_project_design_elements
What is The Project Approach? - The Project Approach. (2014). Retrieved May 04, 2016, from http://projectapproach.org/about/project-approach/
All three articles were common in that they all included three of the seven essential project design elements according to the Gold Standard PBL. The three elements include: challenging problem/question, sustained inquiry, and authenticity. I was happy to see that each article had a challenging problem or question because it makes learning more meaningful for students. Students are not learning for the sake of memorizing, but rather engaging in inquiry so that they can use their research to answer a question that matters to THEM. According to teacher Billie Hetrick, “when students are choosing what they want to learn about and when we give them the opportunity to ask questions, and we take time to answer questions, their learning is more meaningful to them” (Curtis 2001). I was happy to see that each article exhibited sustained inquiry because students are continuously asking questions, finding resources, and then asking deeper questions. Students are busy with hands-on learning, tracking their progress and conducting field trips and interviews to deeper their understanding. Frances Koontz, a 3rd grade teacher says she sees big dividends in the hands-on approach to learning—from better writing to deeper investigation skills (Curtis 2002). I was happy to see that each article had some sort of authenticity to it, whether it be authentic context, real-world processes, or personal authenticity. Authenticity helps to increase both student motivation and learning. Students in Eeva Reeder’s class spend time authenticating real-life applications of abstract mathematical concepts, as well as learning the value of experience in working as a team to produce a product (Armstrong, 2002).
The roles of the teachers/students in all three articles were very similar from the point of inquiry (some teachers actually picked the project rather than allowing the students to explore ideas on their own). In most cases, the teacher acted as a “facilitator” on “stand-by” while students engaged in the inquiry process. In most cases as well, the student acted as a “researcher” and the “leader”, taking ownership and control over exploration. Because of this, I believe that each of these three examples increased student engagement and knowledge/ skill acquisition and transfer. Student engagement in all three examples is exceptionally high because students are actively using inquiry skills as they see fit, as well as taking ownership and not just memorizing information for their next test. As a result, students in all three examples are enthusiastic and have a hunger/ strong desire to learn. Students are building knowledge/skill acquisition and transfer because they are following John Dewey’s philosophy of reflection on experiences. According to the Gold Standard PBL article, reflection on the content knowledge and understanding gained helps students solidify what they have learned and think about how it might apply elsewhere, beyond the project (Larmer, Mergendoller, & Boss 2015). In addition to engagement and skill transfer, there is a significant amount of technology integration in each of the three articles. Students are creating muli-media presentations, using digital cameras, connecting with others globally in a “flat classroom” manner, and taking their projects to higher levels on the SAMR model. In this way, technology is transforming the way students are learning and processing.
In terms of meeting the Gold Standard of PBL, I feel that only one example met the expectations- More Fun Than a Barrell of… Worms. I feel that this example had a challenging problem/question (in each example: "What Happens at Night"; "Concern for a Classmate"; and "Looking Toward Wall Street"). This example kept students continuously engaged in sustained inquiry through things like interviews, field trips, and finding resources to help answer inquiry questions. This example was authentic in terms of personal authenticity because students in “Concern for a Classmate” example researched something that was meaningful to their interests, meaningful to their concerns, and directly related to an issue in their own lives—Cystic Fibrosis diagnosis of a classmate. I feel that this example included many types of students choice/voice. For example, students in “Concern for a Classmate” had a say in the project and a sense of ownership as they researched more about a concerned classmates on-going health struggles. I feel that this example includes reflection because the usage of “thinking maps” and project day helps students learn from experience and deepen their reflection. I feel that this example includes critique and revision because in Phase 2 of The Project Approach, students elicit parent/community involvement/feedback as they further develop their inquiry. I believe this is the only “weak” area on the Gold Standard PBL because it doesn’t include student/peer feedback, however, the article does suggest that there is critique and revision from community members/ "expert adults". I feel that this example includes a public product because in each of the scenarios of the article, students came up with a public product/ presentation. As part of The Project Approach, students at this school invited parents, community members, staff, and students from other schools to present (Curtis 2001).
To elaborate more on why I don’t feel that the other two examples made the gold standard, I feel that Geometry Students Angle into Architecture Through Project Learning failed to involve TRUE student voice and choice. I feel that this PBL was more teacher-dictated than student-chosen. I do believe it DID contain all other areas to warrant itself as "gold". March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies’ Migration failed to involve student voice/choice (the projects were already established by the teacher), reflection (each child had a folder but there was no DEEP reflection), critique/revision (no peer feedback), and no public product (from what I could understand students did not ever present their findings—at least not in a public manner like many of the other PBL projects did).
References:
Armstrong, S. (2002, February 11). Geometry Students Angle into Architecture Through Project Learning. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/geometry-real-world-students-architects
Curtis, D. (2001, October 01). More Fun Than a Barrel of ...Worms?! Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/more-fun-barrel-worms
Curtis, D. (2002, June 06). March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies' Migration. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/march-monarchs
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Gold Standard PBL: Essential Project Design Elements. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://bie.org/blog/gold_standard_pbl_essential_project_design_elements
What is The Project Approach? - The Project Approach. (2014). Retrieved May 04, 2016, from http://projectapproach.org/about/project-approach/