Reflections on Designs 2013: Exploring Project-Based Learning

“Teachers are designers.  An essential act of our profession is the crafting of curriculum and learning experiences to meet specified purposes.”

-Wiggins & McTighe, 2005

Three years ago I worked with a team of instructional leaders from the North Vancouver School District  in developing an after school workshop series for educators called “Designing Curriculum for Deep Learning and Diversity“.  The goal of the series was to introduce teachers to McTigue and Wiggin’s Understanding by Design model that had been gaining momentum across the US and Canada.

Another major goal for the series was to emphasize the importance of planning for diverse learners, with differentiated  instruction and assessment strategies built into every curriculum, using the Universal Design for Learning framework.

Interest in the in-service series in 2010 was high, with over 100 people registering and attending a total of five after school sessions in their school teams.  At the first workshop a secondary teacher pointed out that the name of the series was too long. He suggested we consider something shorter that could roll off people’s tongues. At the time we were living the Olympic dream in Vancouver, so everything had a catchy name ending in 2010. “How about Designs 2010?” he suggested. I  agreed and the name stuck.

Feedback from the Designs 2010 series was very positive. Teachers expressed an  interest in continuing to explore UbD as a model for curriculum design the following year. Designs 2011, developed and facilitated by teacher leaders who attended the  2010 series, offered participants the opportunity to collaborate in grade (elementary) or subject (secondary) specific groups on the development of UbD unit plans. The Designs  2011 series helped deepen educators’ understanding of backward curriculum design and led to the development of several district  UbD planning tools and shared resources.

During job action in 2012  teachers were not able to attend any district-led in-service. I wondered if it would be possible to revive the interest in curriculum design a year later.  In fall 2012, with the strike behind us, and in my new role as Director of Instruction for Learning Services, I began to notice a renewal of interest among teachers in after school in-service. It was time to start planning for Designs 2013…

The growing interest among North Vancouver teachers in the Project-Based Learning (PBL) model was hard to ignore.  A group of administrators had visited High Tech High in the spring of 2012 and had introduced their staff to PBL through photos and stories.  Some schools had even organized their own trips to HTH for their staff members in the fall of 2012.  The wave was catching on, but was still isolated to certain corners of the district.

At the same time, I was beginning my doctoral research in PBL at one of our schools.   I was interested in following the story of implementation for this group of teachers who had been asked to consider Project-Based Learning as a way of increasing student engagement and academic achievement in a secondary alternative education setting.  In particular, my research was going to focus on professional development support for the successful implementation of PBL.

The choice of Project-Based Learning as a focus for the Designs 2013 series seemed obvious to me given the emergent interest in the field and the direct links to our previous work in UbD.  Yet I still wasn’t convinced that knowledge or understanding of the PBL model had spread far enough in our school district to attract a critical mass of teachers to a three part after-school series.  It took  a strong team of teacher leaders, with a passionate interest in PBL, to develop a framework for the in-service.  In early January we sent out the Designs 2013 Poster.  We were happily surprised when, within a month, over 130 educators registered for the series!

This in-service was truly designed by teachers, for teachers.  Session 1 provided participants with an overview and frameworks for PBL, while sessions 2 and 3 focused on exploring examples and stories of PBL designs from North Vancouver classrooms, and structuring opportunities for teachers  to practise developing and fine-tuning their own PBL designs. Participants left with a list of Project Based Learning Resources that included links to PBL videos, frameworks and templates for planning. Teachers were grateful for the opportunity to do their own background reading online in between sessions.  We also created a Linoit board for participants to post questions and links to other resources.

The Designs 2013 series wrapped up this week and we are now in the process of gathering feedback from participants.  So far, the reviews have been really positive.  This is extremely satisfying for our leadership team, who worked hard to design an in-service that would be deeply meaningful and impactful for teachers.  But we are still left with the question: “Now what?”

For some reason, we have been successful in getting teachers to participate in the district “Designs” series.  Perhaps it is because the “Designs” brand really has caught on, or because the topic of curriculum design has more universal appeal for teachers than other aspects of teaching (literacy instruction, assessment, etc.)

Nonetheless, we know from research that in order for professional development to be effective and sustainable, district-level workshops are not enough.  Teachers who attended the series need to continue exploring PBL through meaningful, collaborative, and on-going learning opportunities with their colleagues, either at the school level, or through facilitated cross-district sessions.

More importantly, how do we measure the effectiveness over time of this in-service series?  Having participants  answer a few questions in a feedback form will tell us how they liked the workshops, but won’t necessarily provide evidence with respect to a change in practice in classrooms across the school district.  Nor will the feedback from the series provide any evidence of increased student achievement as a result of the implementation of PBL in classrooms.

I am reminded of Thomas Guskey’s Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation and wonder if there is a way for us to dig deeper or reach higher in our evaluation of the Designs series. It’s a good inquiry question for us to grapple with as a leadership team.

Sergiovanni (1995) said, “ Students learn best by doing, and doing is best when it is lifelike – When it involves engagement with real or near real problem solving.”  This is also true for teachers.  They need time and support to work with colleagues on the development of new curriculum design.

Like the PBL model itself, effective curriculum design is hard work.  It requires a high level of engagement in problem solving, creativity, and collaboration with peers.   Above all, it requires support over time in order to be sustainable.

The best school systems in the world are now investing in professional development for teachers that enables them to collaborate on curriculum design.  In Finland teachers have opportunities to engage in joint curriculum planning and approve school-level curriculum.  “The importance of curriculum design in teacher practice has helped shift the focus of professional development from fragmented inservice training toward more systemic, theoretically grounded, school-wide improvement efforts” (Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011). 

Many of the participants in the Designs 2013 series are already asking for this kind of investment and support from the school district in implementing more inquiry and project-based designs for learning.

It behooves us to find a way to make it happen.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Rothman, R. (2011). Teacher and Leader Effectiveness in High Performing Education Systems. SCOPE.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development, Corwin Press.

Sergiovanni, T. (1995).  The principalship:  A reflective practice perspective, Allyn & Bacon.

Wiggins, G. & McTigue, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.

Exploring an Archeology of Ideas in Project-Based Learning

Today everyone is talking about Project-Based Learning as a ‘new’, 21^st Century approach to teaching and learning.  But is the use of projects in teaching all that new? Not really…

Back in 1918 William H. Kilpatrick published “The Project Method” Child-Centeredness in Progressive Education” in The Teachers’ College Record.  In this now famous essay Kilpatrick proposes “wholehearted purposeful activity in a social situation as the typical unit of school procedure” in order to utilize “the child’s native capacities now too frequently wasted.”

William H. Kilpatrick

It’s fair to say that lots of teachers today use projects in their classrooms, so does that mean they are all doing project-based learning?  Not according to John Larmer and John Mergendoller who wrote a fabulous article in 2010 called: “The Main Course, Not Dessert: How are Students Reaching 21^st Century Goals with 21^st Century Project-Based Learning?” Larmer and Mergendoller point out that most teachers today still view projects as “dessert” – lightweight, fun activities (e.g. posters, skits, models) served up to students after they have learned the course material through more traditional methods such as lectures, textbook readings, worksheets, etc.  By contrast, in project-based learning (PBL), the project is “the main course”.  It is central rather than peripheral to the curriculum.

So what do we really mean when we talk about Project-Based Learning?  Based on my research, here are some of the characteristics of PBL defined by the experts…

Project-based learning (or PBL):

• Is a comprehensive instructional approach
• Uses principles of backward curriculum design
• Frames learning in long-term units of study rather than short-term, isolated lessons
• Organizes learning using two critical components:1) Driving Questions and 2) the production of Projects (artifacts) that address the driving question and represent student learning
• Focuses on authentic, important real-world issues that capture learners’ interests and provoke critical thinking and reflection
• Engages students in sustained, collaborative inquiry
• Fosters collaboration (between students and between students and teachers) in designing projects
• Develops important skills including: critical thinking, research, communication, collaboration, problem solving, and leadership.
• Aligns assessment with projects – high interest tasks or performances that mirror the type of work professionals do in the community
• Ensures that all learning culminates in a publicly exhibited product, publication, or presentation (developing a model, invention or business proposal; performing a play; writing a newspaper article; producing a video) – there is purpose and an audience connected to every project so that students recognize the relevancy and authenticity of their learning
• Provides a natural link to ‘service-learning’ – students have opportunities to investigate current social/environmental issues and affect change in their community or globally

Project-based learning as we know it today is a complex framework for teaching and learning that has obviously developed over time with thoughtful consideration.

So where did all these ideas and components for PBL come from…?

For my final assignment in the last course in my EdD program: Seminar in Educational Theory, and my current dissertation research project, I wanted to explore the historical underpinnings of project-based learning.  What I have discovered in researching this topic is that PBL is in fact grounded in the theories of some well-known philosophers and child psychologists.  Here is what my ‘archeological digging’ for ideas came up with…

PBL and Inquiry-Based Learning

Socrates

It may be argued that project-based learning owes its philosophical foundations to the Ancient Greek philosophers, and in particular Socrates (469-399 BC) who used a dialectic method of questioning in teaching his students. Socratic inquiry is based on the belief that asking thoughtful questions stimulates meaningful learning. The purpose of Socratic questioning is to prompt and guide students’ thinking, instead of imparting information by direct instruction. It is a teaching approach that is characterized by inquiry, debate, critical thinking, and active dialogue between instructor and student.

Project-based learning is grounded in the inquiry-based tradition, both as part of the process of learning and in the creation of projects. Students work in groups asking questions, researching answers, and drawing conclusions, as they work towards the creation of a project that represents their learning. While traditional teaching follows an approach of providing knowledge and concepts to students first, followed by structured opportunities for practice and application of new learning, project-based learning adheres to the principles of backward design, beginning with “the end in mind” – the project.  Project-based learning creates opportunities for students to investigate meaningful questions that require them to gather information and think critically.

A key component of the PBL framework is the Driving Question, which helps to initiate the inquiry process and maintain the focus on core learning outcomes and the project itself. Driving questions are open-ended, challenging, and have no one “right” answer. They frame important issues or problems (How can we reduce pollution in the local creek?), debates (Should skateboarders be allowed to ride anywhere in the city?), or challenges (What is the best design for a high school?).  Driving questions sustain further inquiry, deepen students’ learning, and ultimately lead to the creation of an original project.

For an interesting article on driving questions check out Andrew Miller’s 2011 article: “How to Refine Driving Questions for Effective Project-Based Learning”.

PBL and Experiential Learning

Experiential learning emphasizes the central role that experience plays in the learning process.  The idea of learning by doing and empirical accounts of knowledge can be traced as far back as John Locke (1632-1704) who in the 17^th century advanced the idea that all reason and knowledge are derived from experience.

John Locke

In Some Thoughts Concerning Education, originally published in 1693, Locke advanced several principles of instruction that included the notion that children learn better by practice and doing, particularly when their work is linked to their personal interests. Sounds a lot like current descriptions of project-based learning!

Another experientialist whose philosophy underpins project-based learning is John Dewey (1859-1952), who famously said, “Education is not preparation for life, but is life itself.”

John Dewey

Dewey believed that deep learning occurs when students focus their attention, energies, and abilities on solving genuine problems or issues.  For education to be most effective, content must be presented in a manner that allows students to relate the information to prior experiences and to deepen their connection to new knowledge through direct, hands-on experiences. Dewey insisted on the “intimate and necessary relation between the process of actual experience and education” (Experience and Education, p. 28) in order to make learning meaningful for students.  Dewey’s philosophy of learning is central to the PBL model, which is designed to allow students to act, experience, and interact with the curriculum in more direct and meaningful ways.

PBL and Constructivism/Social Constructivism

Jean Piaget

Constructivism was developed in the latter part of the 20^th century as an alternative to the behaviorist approaches to education in which learning is viewed through the lens of ‘instruction’, and knowledge is considered to be external, objective reality.  Jean Piaget (1896-1980) is widely acknowledged for his contributions to the theory of constructivism.  Piaget’s theory of human development was based on the hypothesis that learning is a transformative process; children learn by constructing new ideas or concepts based on their current and previous knowledge. Understanding is shaped and reshaped as new knowledge is acquired, especially when new knowledge is incompatible with previous understanding.

Constructivism views learning as an active process that requires learners to construct their own understanding through engagement in hands-on learning opportunities, followed by opportunities for reflection. In the project-based learning model, students focus on deep exploration of significant issues or problems.  Through an on-going process of knowledge construction and reflection, students design personally meaningful projects that represent and transform their understanding of big ideas connected to the curriculum.

The Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) developed a theory of social constructivism based on the idea that learners construct knowledge through interactions with their environment.

Vygotsky

In contrast to Piaget and other constructivists who believed that development always precedes learning, Vygotsky believed that social learning precedes development, particularly when learners are in the presence of more competent ‘others’. His well-known theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is defined as “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Mind in Society, 1978, p.86).

In Vygotskian theory, and in the project-based learning model, the starting point for instruction is the learner’s current knowledge and skills. The learner brings prior knowledge and experience to the learning task, which can be applied to solve problems and develop new understanding. Project-based learning reflects a Vygotskian perspective by prioritizing social interactions that allow learners to “face cognitive challenges that are just slightly above their current levels of ability” (Wrigley, 1998, p.2).

In PBL classrooms students have opportunities to work in cooperative groups entering into “discussion and meaningful interaction with more capable peers or teachers. These individuals can model problem solving, assist in finding solutions, monitor progress, and evaluate success.

Paolo Freire (1921-1997),a Brazilian educator and political activist, is also considered a significant contributor to the field of social constructivism.

Paolo Freire

Like other constructivists, Freire viewed knowledge not as something static that is transmitted from teacher to learner (the“banking model”), but as something that is socially constructed through meaningful questioning and dialogue. He advocated for a concept of education grounded in problematisation (or problem-posing), a form of critical inquiry. “Only an education of question can trigger, motivate, and reinforce curiosity” (Pedagogy of the Heart, 2004, p. 31). Freire’s work focused on making education a meaningful and liberating process, particularly for disadvantaged children in Brazil, by focusing on critical thinking, and the development of identity, democratic participation, and cooperation. Freire considered the traditional “banking” concept of education “as an instrument of oppression” (Freire, 1970) and advocated instead for learning that focused on problem-posing and dialogue, one that would ultimately lead to critical consciousness (conscientizaçào) – “the ability among students to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 17).

Action and reflection (praxis) were important in Freire’s work and are particularly relevant, important concepts to consider in a project-based learning model.

PBL and Constructionism

 The Constructionist epistemology builds on both the experiential and constructivist theories of learning to view learning as a reconstruction rather than a transmission of knowledge. Seymour Papert (born 1928) initially proposed the theory of constructionism in the late 1980s, through a grant application to the National Science Foundation called Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education.

Constructionism extends the ideas of experientialism (learning by doing), Piaget’s theory of constructivism (individuals reconstructing new knowledge based on experiences), and Vygotsky’s and Freire’s theories of social constructivism, by asserting that deep, meaningful learning occurs through the creation of an artifact or product of one’s learning.  In 1991 Papert and Harel wrote:

Constructionism–the N word as opposed to the V word–shares constructivism’s connotation of learning as “building knowledge structures” irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe. (Situating Constructionism, 1991, p. 1)

To see what Papert has to say about Project-Based Learning, check out this interview with him on Edutopia.

The idea of students constructing knowledge in the form of an original artifact is the core element in the project-based learning model; moreover, it is what distinguishes project-based learning from other inquiry/constructivist theories such as problem-based learning.  In project-based learning students work cooperatively towards the creation and public exhibition of a tangible, meaningful product (e.g. simulation, game, story, pamphlet, video, play, model, website, etc.) that represents their personal and social construction of meaningful knowledge.

Rooted in inquiry, experientialism, constructivism, social constructivism, and constructionism, project-base project-based learning is a clearly a theory of learning with legitimate, well-defined historical and philosophical roots.

Project-Based Learning Resources Online: 

In researching the topic of project-based learning I have used many resources, some of which are available on the Internet.  Here are my recommendations as a starting point for others interested in learning more about PBL.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Gusdial, M & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369-398 

Buck Institute for Learning – “Dedicated to improving 21st Century teaching and learning throughout the world by creating and disseminating products, practices and knowledge for effective Project Based Learning (PBL).”

Edutopia – another great website full of  practical ideas for teaching using the PBL approach

Grant, M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian, 5(1).

Grant, M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students’ perspectives with project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 37-69.

Houghton Mifflin Project-Based Learning Space

Patton, A. (2012). Work that matters: The teacher’s guide to project-based learning: A High Tech High and Learning Futures Project guide. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

Scholastic – The Power of Project-Based Learning

Wrigley, H. (1998). Knowledge in action: The promise of project-based learning. Focus on Basics: Connecting Research and Practice, 2(D). National Centre for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.

Project Based Learning – Reflections on High Tech High

We must provide students with improved strategies to help deal with (real world) problems – that is what holds the most promise in our educational system.  

John Barell, Problem Based Learning: The Foundation for the 21^st Century 

In January 2012 the North Vancouver School District was pleased to host Larry Rosenstock, CEO and founding principal of High Tech High, a network of eleven K-12 public charter schools in California.  Rosenstock has an impressive resumé.  In the late 1990s he directed the New Urban High School Project, an initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Education aimed at creating a new model for urban American high schools.  As a former carpentry teacher, administrator and attorney, Rosenstock is committed to an educational model that prioritizes personalization of learning, collaboration, and real-world connections.  This model is at the heart of the High Tech High organization of charter schools.

I was very fortunate to work with a team of educators who designed the plan for Larry’s presentation in North Vancouver and then travelled to San Diego in April to tour several High Tech High schools.  Our field trip was an amazing professional development experience and highly successful in terms of the ideas and inspiration we brought home. We were able to speak in depth with staff and students at the schools we visited, observe classes in action, and collectively take hundreds of photos to record examples and artifacts of great teaching and deep learning.

The North Van team was particularly inspired by the emphasis on Project-Based Learning at High Tech High.  All teachers at HTH are firmly committed to this pedagogy.  They work collaboratively in ‘pods’ with their colleagues to design, implement, and reflect on unique, multi-disciplinary projects.  The curriculum design is similar to the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework in that HTH teachers use the principles of backward design, beginning with California State Common Core Standards.  Learning throughout the project is driven by Big Ideas and Essential Questions that have relevance beyond the classroom.  Each project culminates in a product (published writing, art project, 3D model, etc.) or performance (play, debate, speech, musical performance, etc.).

The projects are academically rigorous but also provide relevancy to the students’ personal lives and to the world beyond school.  The collaborative development of these projects goes beyond teachers simply planning together; there are specific stopping points along the way when teachers in the pod are asked to participate in Project Tuning sessions. These sessions follow a specific protocol that includes opportunities for the project designer to describe the projects, present student examples, consider feedback from colleagues, and reflect on the effectiveness of the project’s design.

We noticed a noticeably high level of motivation among the staff at HTH.  Teachers talked about how much they enjoyed the project-based approach to learning and the opportunity (dedicated time) to collaborate with other staff members in curriculum design and action research. Many teachers had taken significant pay cuts to come to HTH from the regular public school system.  They said they work harder now than ever – developing original, project-based curriculum designs, collaborating with colleagues, and reflecting on their practice.  And yet none of them would ever go back to the regular system of prescribed curriculum sequences and teaching in isolation.  Staff turnover is minimal at HTH.  And it’s a competitive, complex process to get hired in the first place.  We were there during a Hiring Bonanza in one of the HTH schools.  The process is a full-day, interactive job interview involving 25 candidates, who interact with staff and students, teach model lessons in real classrooms, and answer questions from a panel of key stakeholders from HTH, including staff and students.

Students are likewise highly motivated and deeply engaged in learning at HTH.  They spoke to us with excitement and pride about the process and culminating products and performances of their learning projects. They appreciate the real-world connections of their assignments and the more collaborative, personalized approach to learning.  They understand that their education at HTH is very different from the public system. They feel a sense of ownership; not only over their own learning, but also over the operation and success of the school they attend– they were very proud to guide us through the schools and could easily articulate the underlying constructivist, project-based philosophy of High Tech High.

The conceptual and physical design of HTH schools is also worth mentioning as an important component in this project-based learning environment.  Consistent with the Reggio Emilia early learning philosophy, the conceptual and physical environment of HTH truly represents the third teacher.  The school’s timetable has been designed to support project-based, inter-disciplinary learning.  Longer blocks of time (90 minutes at secondary) with fluidity in transitions (no bells) and minimal interruptions (no PA system!) help to maximize instructional time in the core subjects.  Sports activities and extracurricular learning take place after school.

The schools have all been built with an open concept in mind; windows rather than walls for classrooms allow students, staff and visitors to observe learning taking place.   When we visited the schools, pedagogical narration/documentation was evident in every school and at every grade level.  The process of learning and the final products of class projects were documented and displayed in the hallways in a professional manner.  In fact, the school had the look and feel of a museum or interpretative centre, with a vast collection of student artwork and learning artifacts that had been professionally curated (by students and staff) with attention to detail and aesthetics.  The story of the process of learning was everywhere.

Project-based learning is not unique to High Tech High, but the school has definitely embraced this philosophy as a core value in curriculum design and teaching methodology.  And it seems to work.  Students at HTH come from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds and have many of the same learning challenges as students in other schools.  In fact, Rosenstock is quick to point out that the blind lottery used to enroll students in his popular charter school system ensures that under privileged students are well represented.  High Tech High is by no means an elitist school system.  The student body includes a high percentage of ELL learners with language challenges, as well as students with learning disabilities, and behavior issues, who seem to outperform their peers in the regular public school system.  High Tech High boasts high levels of achievement for all students on state exams and SAT scores.

There are many elements of High Tech High philosophy that cannot be replicated in schools in BC for current political and logistical reasons.  However, the project-based approach to curriculum design and pedagogy can be imported.  In a debriefing session after our visit to HTH, our North Vancouver team identified many elements of the High Tech High project-based model we would like to enhance or implement in our schools.  Highlights of our discussion included:

Curriculum Design for Educators:

• Continued focus on backward design in curriculum development with a focus on complex Big Ideas and Essential Questions that drive inquiry-based instruction and learning
• Problem-based curriculum design that begins with a relevant question or problem for students to investigate
• Inter-disciplinary and collaborative approaches to planning (staff working in pods) with dedicated time during the day for teachers to meet and plan together
• Implementation of the Project Tuning Protocol to foster deeper reflection on teaching practices and enhance the quality of curriculum designs
• Greater emphasis on pedagogical documentation at all levels, with a specific focus on the curation of student learning processes and products throughout the schools’ hallways

 Curriculum Design for Students:

• Significant opportunities for students to work in teams, developing 21^st Century skills in communication, collaboration, critical thinking, research, and inquiry-based problem solving
• Personalized approaches to project design that meet the needs and interests of diverse learners, with differentiated instruction and assessment
• Renewed emphasis on learning activities that engage and motivate students, with authentic performance tasks and products that enable them to demonstrate their understanding of essential concepts and mastery of core skills
• Real world applications of learning, with opportunities for students to connect with professionals from the field, including authentic and engaging career and work experiences
• Opportunities for students to investigate social issues and affect positive social change in their community and globally.
• Curriculum design that allows students to take ownership of their education, reflecting on their progress, goal setting, and exercising voice and choice in their learning pathway.

Examples of High Tech High projects are available for viewing at http://projects.hightechhigh.org/. Additional projects may be found on the High Tech High website at www.hightechhigh.org.